Hansard, 1999-04-15

Under the provisions of clause 2(d) of Article 46 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, the following Members have been granted permission to be or to remain absent from sittings of Parliament (or any Committee of Parliament to which they have been appointed) for the periods stated: NameNameFrom (1999)(1999) Prof S Jayakumar21 Mar31 Mar 12 Apr13 Apr Mr Ong Kian Min21 Mar23 Mar 30 Mar2 Apr 19 Apr1 May Mr Sin Boon Ann22 Mar29 Mar 12 Apr13 Apr Dr Wan Soon Bee22 Mar28 Mar Mr Zulkifli Baharudin23 Mar28 Mar Mr Inderjit Singh25 Mar26 Mar 26 Apr28 Apr Mr David T E Lim27 Mar29 Mar Dr Michael Lim Chun Leng27 Mar29 Mar Mr Tan Soo Khoon30 Mar31 Mar NameNameFrom (1999)(1999) Dr Toh See Kiat31 Mar2 Apr Mr Goh Chee Wee5 Apr9 Apr Dr S Vasoo5 Apr9 Apr Mr Leong Horn Kee6 Apr10 Apr Encik Sidek bin Saniff8 Apr11 Apr Mr Chng Hee Kok8 Apr16 Apr Mr Seng Han Thong8 Apr18 Apr Encik Yatiman Yusof9 Apr17 Apr Mr Yeo Guat Kwang9 Apr11 Apr Mr Ahmad Mohd Magad9 Apr14 Apr Mr Hawazi Daipi9 Apr18 Apr Mr Lim Swee Say9 Apr23 Apr Mr Lim Boon Heng10 Apr11 Apr Mr Ibrahim Bin Othman10 Apr12 Apr Mr Chay Wai Chuen10 Apr20 Apr 1 May13 May Assoc Prof Chin Tet Yung10 Apr16 Apr BG Lee Hsien Loong11 Apr24 Apr Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam11 Apr24 Apr Dr Ow Chin Hock12 Apr14 Apr Mr Chew Heng Ching12 Apr14 Apr Mr J B Jeyaretnam 15 Apr15 Apr Mr Heng Chiang Meng 15 Apr15 Apr 25 Apr28 Apr Mr Yeo Cheow Tong15 Apr16 Apr Assoc. Prof. Low Seow Chay16 Apr20 Apr BG George Yong-Boon Yeo16 Apr24 Apr Mr Lew Syn Pau17 Apr22 Apr Dr John Chen Seow Phun17 Apr24 Apr Mr Peh Chin Hua17 Apr24 Apr Dr Yaacob Ibrahim18 Apr24 Apr Mr K Shanmugam18 Apr26 Apr Mr S Iswaran19 Apr21 Apr 26 Apr29 Apr 10 May11 May Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed21 Apr29 Apr Mr Loh Meng See22 Apr27 Apr Mr Tang Guan Seng25 Apr29 Apr RAdm Teo Chee Hean25 Apr2 May Mr Bernard Chen26 Apr28 Apr NameNameFrom (1999)(1999) Mr Peter Chen28 Apr12 May Mr Wong Kan Seng14 May28 May TAN SOO KHOON Speaker Parliament of Singapore

The following Bills were assented to by the President of the Republic of Singapore on the dates stated: 20 March 1999 Betting and Sweepstake Duties (Amendment) Bill. 25 March 1999 (1) Supply Bill; and (2) Supplementary Supply Bill. TAN SOO KHOON Speaker Parliament of Singapore

asked the Minister for National Development if he will give an update on the measures taken by his Ministry to prevent the spreading of Japanese Encephalitis and when we can expect the import of live pigs into Singapore.

asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the total number of pork sellers, pork-based and pork-related traders and stallholders who are affected by the ban on the import of live pigs into Singapore; and (b) whether there are other forms of assistance being considered to help these traders and stallholders, apart from the one-month rental waiver for pork stallholders and factories.

asked the Minister for National Development whether, in the recent viral outbreak, the illnesses of the abattoir workers and those involved in the trading of pigs could have been avoided, and how serious are their illnesses.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 1, 2 and 3 together?

Yes.

Thank you. Sir, first, let me give a quick summary of what happened. Following the outbreak of the Japanese Encephalitis (JE) in Malaysia, the Primary Production Department (PPD) monitored the situation closely and kept in close contact with their counterparts in Malaysia. As the situation deteriorated in Malaysia, PPD progressively took additional measures. PPD carried out serological surveys on imported pigs to confirm that there was no active JE infection in imported pigs. Mosquito control measures were intensified. Abattoir workers were advised to be vaccinated. When it was reported that a Hendra-like virus has been isolated from human cases in Malaysia, PPD stopped the import of all pigs from Malaysia and closed our abattoirs. As an added precaution, PPD also banned the import of dogs, cats, horses and other mammals from Malaysia. These measures are still in place today. PPD and other agencies in the Ministries of the Environment and Health are still closely monitoring the situation. The measures put in place have been effective in not only ensuring that JE did not occur in Singapore but also that the outbreak of the previously unknown Hendra-like virus has been contained. Next, let me touch on the impact of the ban. The ban on the import of live pigs into Singapore has affected the following groups of people directly: i. 22 live pig importers; ii. 759 pork stallholders (647 pork stallholders in markets managed by HDB, and another 112 by ENV); iii. 98 meat processing plants licensed by PPD. These plants, employing about 860 workers, are involved in the cutting and deboning of pork, meat roasting and the manufacturing of Chinese and Taiwanese sausages, and sweet meat (bak kua); and iv 75 food factory tenants in HDB industrial estates. 11 of these are meat processing plants licensed by PPD. To assist those directly affected by the ban and with little recourse to substitutes, both HDB and ENV have waived the rent for pork stalls in HDB and ENV markets for one month. As for the 75 food factory tenants, they either received a waiver of one-month rent or a half-a-month (if they are not completely dependent on fresh pork supplies), and one month service and conservancy charges given by the PAP Town Councils. Both HDB and ENV would review the concessions given towards the end of the one-month rent free period and may extend the waiver, if necessary. With regard to the resumption of live pig imports, we will only allow it when we are certain and confident that they are safe for the Singaporean public. When pigs can be imported from Malaysia will depend on how successfully the current disease outbreak is controlled. We will resume imports from Johor only when the area can be declared to be a disease-free zone according to international standards. We do not foresee this taking place in the immediate future. The pig farms in Pulau Bulan, Indonesia, were not affected by the JE or Hendra-like virus outbreak. However, now that we know of the existence of the Hendra-like virus in our region, we have to take special precautions. First, Pulau Bulan must be free from the Hendra-like virus or Nipah virus. PPD has recently inspected Pulau Bulan and did not observe any clinical evidence of the disease there. PPD has also taken blood samples of the pigs and sent them to CDC, Atlanta, USA, for Nipah virus testing. When we receive the test results to confirm that the farms and the island are free from the disease, then we can be sure that Pulau Bulan is indeed free. Following that, we will do regular blood testing every two weeks to exclude the Nipah virus infection. We will also maintain strict viral security at the farms, ie, the pigs can only be brought into the farms with PPD's approval. We will insist on the maintenance of strict hygiene and control of vectors such as mosquitoes, bats which are potential Nipah virus vector and rodents. In addition, PPD will insist that the following measures be taken: All pigs, from the weaning stage, must wear ear tags that are serially numbered and approved by PPD as a means of identification. Each consignment of pigs must be isolated for two weeks prior to exporting to Singapore. Every consignment of pigs must be inspected by a PPD veterinary officer to ensure that the pigs are properly identified and are healthy before loading into barges for transport to Singapore. Every consignment of pigs must again be inspected for health and identification on arrival in Singapore. In the short term, PPD will station its own veterinary officers full-time at Pulau Bulan to check production and health records, closely monitor the farms for any sign of infectious diseases and ensure that all pigs are properly tagged and accounted for. In this way, we can be confident that any pig imported into Singapore from Pulau Bulan will be disease-free. Dr Lee Tsao Yuan asked whether the illnesses could have been avoided. Let me explain that our actions taken have been effective in preventing the JE outbreak from occurring in Singapore. However, the illnesses affecting the local abattoir workers have been confirmed to be due to the previously unknown Hendra-like virus. Prior to 19th March 1999, there were no reports from Malaysia that indicated that another virus other than JE may be involved in the human cases there. Dr Lee also asked about the seriousness of the illnesses. Eleven abattoir workers were affected by the viral illness. Of these, 9 had infection of the brain and 2 had infection of the lungs. One of the patients died and 9 have been discharged from hospital as at 12th April 1999. The remaining patient who is still in hospital has improved and is in stable condition. The patient is expected to be discharged from hospital later this week. The illness caused by the Hendra-like virus is serious and can be fatal. Prompt action by the various Government agencies has limited the number of infections. We were unfortunate to have one fatality but we are thankful that the rest have recovered.

Sir, may I ask the Minister if we need to diversify our sources of food import as much as possible from now on and whether he will promote chilled fresh meat as the preferred choice of meat in Singapore, and if anything can be done and has been done to facilitate this?

Sir, the outbreak of the Nipah virus is of serious consequences to us as far as our pig imports are concerned. Even with all the precautions that we have taken, the supply from Pulau Bulan can only meet 20% of our consumption. At the same time, we do not see the supply from Johor or the rest of Malaysia coming in in the immediate future. So our main sources will have to be from other countries in the form of chilled or frozen pork. This is the business environment that we are communicating to those in the trade. We are having discussions with the pork stallholders association and explaining to them that they have to adjust to this new environment and the Government would help them to adapt to this new condition. At best, Pulau Bulan can supply us 20%. The supply from Malaysia will not be forthcoming, and even if it is forthcoming in the following months or years, it will continue to have a question mark because of the outbreak of the Hendra virus. We will always have to look out for possible outbreaks. For reasons of food safety and hygiene and diversification of our sources, we feel that we have to move to chilled and frozen pork from a wider variety of sources and we will be working with traders in the trade on how to adjust to providing chilled and frozen pork to Singaporeans.

Sir, the Minister has said that the PAP Town Councils have given a waiver of service and conservancy charges to all stalls selling pork. I would like to report to this House that the Potong Pasir Town Council has done likewise.

Sir, may I ask two questions? The first is: is pork, which has been infected with the Nipah virus and the Hendra-like virus, safe for eating? The second question is: how can we ensure that if we eat pork we would not suffer from eating pork precisely since there was a case of pigs being smuggled into Singapore recently?

We have said this repeatedly. First of all, pigs which are affected by JE, the pork is safe for consumption. JE is not transmitted from human to human and it is not transmitted from eating pork. The evidence so far shows that this is the same for the Hendra-like virus or the Nipah virus, ie, you will not contract the virus from a human being or from eating pork. The evidence so far shows that those who were down with the disease were in direct contact with a diseased pig. That is the main source of infection.

Sir, may I ask the Minister, given that there is a Hendra-like virus involved, race-horses which have visited Malaysia in the last six months may be susceptible to this. What measures is the Ministry taking to make sure that these horses are not infected?

Sir, since 19th March 1999, we have banned the movement of race-horses between Malaysia and Singapore. These horses are kept in quarantine. They have been tested for infection of the virus. The Turf Club in Singapore has also systematically set out to test all the horses in Singapore as a precautionary measure. Only when we are confident that the horses are free from the disease will we admit the horses into Singapore.

Will the Government assist existing fresh pork sellers to transfer to the sale of chilled and frozen pork?

We are in discussion with the association and stallholders. We think it is necessary and important for the stallholders to switch to facilities that can allow them to sell frozen or chilled pork. I think Lianhe Zaobao has reported that a stallholder in Marine Parade market has renovated his stall to sell chilled pork. It shows a very innovative and entrepreneurial approach to the situation. The chiller facilities cost less than $6,000. The Government, through HDB and ENV, will facilitate all this conversion. We will provide the necessary power supply. We will upgrade all our wet markets so that all the stalls can be similarly upgraded.

Sir, can I ask the Minister about the wild boars in Pulau Ubin which have been ordered to be killed? Given that we are taking the approach of testing race-horses, might not the same approach be taken for these wild boars, that they be hunted down, anaesthetized and then tested, rather than being shot on sight?

It is a pleasure to be talking about pigs rather than HDB flats! But I am afraid wild boars do not quite come under my Ministry. These are wild boars in Pulau Ubin and from what I read in the newspapers, there seems to be an over-population of wild boars and MINDEF is taking this opportunity to cull the wild boars. If the wild boars can be tested for the disease, then I hear a comment from behind me that they would not be wild boars. They would be tamed boars!

Sir, could the Minister clarify whether other meats are exposed to the danger of these viruses, such as beef, chicken and duck?

There is no evidence that the virus has spread to any other meat.

asked the Minister for Law whether the occupants of the former Istana Kampong Glam and the adjacent Lot 53 will receive resettlement benefits and what is the Government's plan with respect to the Sultan Hussain Ordinance.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the first part of the Member's question concerns resettlement benefits of the occupants. In the case of the former Istana Kampong Glam, those occupants living there at the cut-off date of 13th March 1999 will be considered for resettlement benefits under prevailing resettlement policy. As for Lot 53 which was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, the normal process is for Land Office to make a compensation award based on vacant possession, in which case the issue of resettlement will not arise. However, if the landowner does not deliver vacant possession, an award on an encumbered basis will be made instead, in which case the occupiers of the property will be cleared under existing resettlement policy. The second part of the Member's question asks about the Government's plan with respect to the Sultan Hussain Ordinance. There are some 79 beneficiaries who are receiving payments under that Ordinance. Many of them are not even in Singapore. Of those in Singapore, only a few of them, about 14, actually live in the former Istana Kampong Glam. The position of the Sultan Hussain Ordinance has been clarified by Government in the past. In particular, the former Minister for National Development, Mr S Dhanabalan, set out the position clearly in this House on 12th March 1991, and I quote an extract: 'In 1896, towards the end of the last century, there was a dispute among the family of Sultan Hussain as to who was the successor to the Sultanate and to the estate, ie, the Kampong Glam Estate. This matter went to court and in December 1897, the Court of Appeal ruled that there was no one who could claim to be the successor. The estate, therefore reverted to the Crown. It became State land and it was no longer subject to the treaties which previously affected it.' Therefore, the Kampong Glam Estate including the former Istana has been State Land since 1897. The British Government then enacted the Sultan Hussain Ordinance in 1904. The intention of the Ordinance was to take care of the financial needs of the family at that time of the late Sultan Hussain who were described by the then British Governor as "very improvident people". The Ordinance provided for annual payment of monies to the family of the late Sultan Hussain pegged to the income derived from the Kampong Glam Estate. These payments were not intended to be in perpetuity but were intended to be made only to "the family of the late Sultan Hussain" at the time the Ordinance was enacted. Nevertheless, for historical reasons, annual payments were continued to be made by subsequent Governments all these 100-odd years. This has led to a very unsatisfactory situation. Firstly, while the number of beneficiaries has steadily increased, the payments are getting smaller as the income from which the payments are made has diminished. Secondly, in future the payments would become even smaller over time as the number of beneficiaries increases. In view of these factors and with the recently announced new conservation projects for Istana Kampong Glam and the adjacent building as a Malay Heritage Centre, Government has decided that it is timely to review the scheme of payments under the Ordinance. The Government has therefore decided on a new scheme of payments. Firstly, we will increase the actual payments to $350,000 per annum. Secondly, this new sum of $350,000 per annum will be maintained for a fixed period of 30 years starting from this year to be distributed among the existing number of beneficiaries in the same proportion to the total annual payment that they are receiving at present. This revised fixed income will be a substantial increase of more than 10 times the actual annual payment to the beneficiaries at present which amounts to about $29,231. In addition, if any beneficiary wishes, the Government will allow him the option of receiving a lump sum payment up-front which would be equivalent to the present value of the future stream of payments under the new scheme. This new scheme will apply to all existing beneficiaries regardless of where they presently live. Those beneficiaries who are now occupants at the former Istana Kampong Glam will benefit from this new scheme of payments in addition to whatever resettlement benefits they may get as described earlier. This new scheme is an equitable way of meeting the interests of the existing beneficiaries. The alternative of maintaining the status quo will mean progressively diminishing amounts of payments. The Land Office will contact the beneficiaries individually to explain the new scheme to them.

I would like to thank the Minister for the very comprehensive answer. I would just like to know whether this would include the beneficiaries who are resident overseas.

Indeed, because under the present scheme, all the 79 beneficiaries are entitled to the payments, so the revised scheme would also apply to them.

Sir, what about those present beneficiaries who do not want to take the lump sum? Will they draw that sum after 30 years?

This new scheme, as I said, is for a period of 30 years, which we think is more than reasonable. It should take care of most of their adult life. It cannot obviously be in perpetuity because the intention was never to be in perpetuity.

The following Question stood in the name of Mr Zulkifli bin Baharudin - 5. To ask the Minister for Trade and Industry, in respect of the Venture Capital Fund for technopreneurs, (a) what are the criteria for eligibility; (b) whether there are any other schemes to help technopreneurs have better access to loans; and (c) whether there are plans to have more liberal policies to deal with problems of business failures and bankruptcies.

Question No. 5, Sir.

Venture capital is smart money. All venture capital funds will subject projects seeking their investment to careful analysis. They will assess the value of the intellectual property, the risk involved and the expected rate of return on investment. Ultimately, the success of the funds will depend on their willingness to assess industry potential and take calculated risks. Government venture capital funds must also be governed by the same principles of risk-return. Through EDB and NSTB, the Government helps to provide seed funding for new start-ups. Projects invested by these funds are subject to standard 'due diligence' analysis. The Technopreneurship 21 Committee will consider other schemes to help technopreneurs gain better access to loans. Our support of technopreneurs should extend beyond financial assistance. It is equally important to give adequate support in other areas, such as providing business guidance and developing market intelligence. To illustrate, NSTB's recently launched $10 million Technology Incubator Programme not only provides seed funding for technopreneurs, it also engages individuals and companies as incubator managers to nurture local start-up companies. Our technopreneurship development strategy must be comprehensive, covering not just financing but also education, facilities and regulation. One of the most important requirements in building up a technopreneurship sector in Singapore is a change in mindset. We need a culture rich in innovation and enterprise. We need to reduce our social cost of failure and encourage those who fail to try again. In this respect, our rules and regulations will be reviewed under the T21 initiative, with a view to removing the obstacles for risk-taking. A private sector committee has been set up to review our existing rules and regulations in order to facilitate technopreneurship. The initial recommendations of the Committee would be announced by the third quarter of this year.

May I ask the Minister, when speaking about standard due diligence, does this mean that the fund will do exactly the same as the banks and other financial institutions do and therefore what advantage is there in Government setting aside a special fund for technopreneurs?

It is important we adopt the best practices which obtain in Silicon Valley and in America. The purpose of starting this new fund is to help create an indigenous venture capital sector in Singapore. Mr Inderjit Singh told me that he once had a project which could not be funded in Singapore and that he had to go to Taiwan where there was so much expertise in this area to get the financing. We should have such a developed sector in Singapore so that those who are starting start-ups here would be able to get local financing.

asked the Minister for Manpower what is the number of management-level workers, particularly the older ones, who have been retrenched as a result of the economic crisis.

Eusofe) (for the Minister for Manpower): The Ministry of Manpower's survey on private sector establishments with at least 25 employees showed that a total of 29,086 workers were retrenched in 1998. 5,830 of them were previously holding higher skilled jobs as managers, executives, professionals and technicians, an increase from 1,779 in 1997. About one in every three of the retrenched who were holding higher skilled jobs were at least 40 years old.

asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether there has been an increase in employers defaulting on both their and their employees' Central Provident Fund contributions and (b) what steps are being taken by the CPF Board to safeguard workers' CPF contribution.

Manpower): There had been a slight increase in the default cases for 1998 as compared to 1997. In 1998, an average of 1,389 employers per month did not pay their employees' CPF contributions continuously for 2 months. In 1997, the average number of defaulting employers was 1,326. The average two-month default rate (ie, the percentage of employers who have not paid CPF contributions for their employees for 2 months) was 1.47% for 1998, as compared with 1.39% for 1997. I agree with the Member that CPF contributions form an integral part of employees' wages and workers depend on these savings to service their housing loans and to meet medical and retirement needs. The CPF Board, as trustee of CPF members' savings, takes a serious view of such default cases. It was for this reason that the Board amended the CPF Act in 1998 to expedite the recovery of CPF arrears and to ensure that the CPF Board could deal effectively and promptly with employers who failed to pay CPF contributions for their employees within the prescribed periods, and to recover these contributions which were due. Having said that, however, my Ministry is aware that many employers are facing financial difficulty in this economic downturn and the CPF Board will assist them wherever possible. In enforcing CPF payments from employers, the CPF Board will balance the need for quick action to recover employees' CPF contribution with the flexibility to allow employers to overcome their temporary cash flow difficulties to survive this downturn and to save jobs. For example, the CPF Board will allow employers who are taken to court for defaulting CPF contributions to pay their arrears by monthly instalments if their current contributions are paid on time, on the condition that they must produce evidence of their ability to pay the arrears. The CPF Board also compounds the offences of employers who are able to settle their CPF arrears before the court hearing so that they do not have to appear in court and pay heavier fines. Sir, I would like to assure the Member that the CPF Board will continue to monitor default cases closely, exercise flexibility where arrears could be paid by monthly instalments and take quick action to recover the arrears through Court action if the need arises.

asked the Minister for Communications whether his Ministry will consider allowing motorists to pay the toll charges at the Woodlands Causeway and the Second Link by using cash cards.

asked the Minister for Communications whether some measures can be taken to alleviate the traffic jams which stretch from the junction of Woodlands Road and Bukit Timah Expressway to the Singapore Immigration checkpoint.

Phun): Sir, may I have your permission to take Questions 8 and 9 together as they are related?

Yes.

Sir, the traffic congestion at the Woodlands Checkpoint is the result of the large number of vehicles leaving Singapore at the same time. On a typical weekday, about 44,000 vehicles pass through the Checkpoint, half of which pass through between 5 pm and 10 pm. As Bukit Timah Expressway (BKE) and Woodlands Road are the only two major access roads to the Checkpoint, the traffic queues at their junction are not surprising. In view of this and in anticipation of future increases in traffic, the Government has built a new Woodlands Checkpoint together with supporting road infrastructure. The new Checkpoint, which will be operational in the latter half of this year, will be linked to the BKE and Woodlands Road. Traffic to the Checkpoint will then be separated from traffic to Woodlands Centre Road. An electronic Traffic Monitoring System (TMS) will be implemented at the new Checkpoint. Variable Message Signs (VMS) will be placed along BKE, Woodlands Road and other nearby roads, to provide real-time information on the traffic condition surrounding the Checkpoint. Mr Ravindran suggested allowing motorists to pay tolls using cashcards. My Ministry has been planning this for some time and I am pleased to inform him that we will be automating the collection of tolls and the Vehicle Entry Permit (VEP) for foreign motorists with effect from January 2000. This system will be implemented at both the Causeway and the 2nd Crossing. With the new system, motorists will be able to pay VEP fees and/or toll charges using stored-value cards. The new automated system is a convenient method of payment that will also facilitate quicker clearance at the Checkpoint. With the new Checkpoint, the new road system, the new automated toll/VEP collection system, the traffic situation at Woodlands Road and BKE should improve significantly. However, should the traffic congestion persist despite these improvements, we may have to consider introducing congestion pricing to optimise the use of the roads leading to the Checkpoint.

Sir, I am happy to hear that the Government is making improvements to reduce the congestion at the Woodlands Checkpoint. My experience is that sometimes there are not enough staff at the immigration booths. On one occasion, I was stuck there for over an hour.

Order. Mr Chiam, are you making a speech? Can you please ask your question?

Is the Government willing to call for all hands on deck if there is a congestion as far as the manning of the immigration booths is concerned?

Sir, the question, rightfully, must be answered by the Minister for Home Affairs. As far as I know, the Immigration Department has been trying to speed up clearance. This is what I have been told. I am not aware of the particular instance that Mr Chiam has encountered. But, certainly, I would ask my counterpart to look into it.

asked the Minister for National Development whether his Ministry will consider assisting those affected under the Selective En-bloc Redevelopment Scheme (SERS), particularly those in Hillview Estate, by (a) granting a higher mortgage loan to them as they had purchased their present resale flats in the Estate from the open market at a high price and still have substantial outstanding loan; and (b) introducing alternative scheme(s) of paying the resale levy by those lessees affected by SERS.

asked the Minister for National Development in regard to the compulsory acquisition of the Housing and Development Board flats at Bukit Gombak under the Selective En-bloc Redevelopment Scheme (a) when did the voting by the residents of each block take place; (b) what was the basis of the quantum of compensation; (c) what is the purpose of acquiring those flats; and (d) when did the HDB decide to acquire those flats.

Sir, may I have your permission to answer Questions 10 and 11 together?

Yes.

Sir, the Selective En-bloc Redevelopment Scheme (SERS) is implemented in sites that have potential for more intensive redevelopment. As the redevelopment of such sites would benefit the country as a whole, HDB flats affected by SERS are acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. Voting is not used to decide whether a site will undergo SERS. Affected flat lessees are compensated for their existing flats at the prevailing market values as at the date of the announcement of SERS. In addition, they are assured allocation of new replacement flats at subsidised prices, frozen as at the date of the announcement of the SERS, plus a 20% price discount up to a maximum of $30,000, if they are eligible to buy a flat directly from the HDB. Blocks 1 to 8, 10 and 12 to 14 of Hillview Avenue were announced for redevelopment under SERS on 21st March 1999. HDB conducts a survey among the affected lessees immediately after the announcement of each SERS site to obtain their feedback. The survey also serves to ascertain the lessees' preferred rehousing options so that the HDB can plan and build the new flats at the replacement site taking into account their preferences. SERS has been well received by the affected lessees in those precincts that have been announced for redevelopment under the Scheme. For the 29 SERS sites announced from August 1995 to end 1998, the average support level from affected lessees is about 94%. Even for the Hillview Avenue site, 84% of the residents who have returned their survey forms so far supported the scheme. The MP for Bukit Gombak has requested for a higher mortgage loan to be granted for SERS lessees in Hillview Estate who have bought their existing flats from the open market at a high price and who still have substantial outstanding mortgage loans. As it is, HDB already grants mortgager loans of up to 90% to those lessees who have opted for 4-room new replacement flats and whose available CPF monies in the ordinary account and balance compensation are insufficient to meet the downpayment and the stamp and conveyancing fees for the new flats. This will include cases where the compensation is not sufficient to pay for the outstanding mortgage loans of the affected SERS flats. If there are specific cases of existing 5-roomers having problems purchasing 5-room replacement flats, HDB is prepared to take a look at how to help them on a case-by-case basis. Lessees under SERS are also exempted from the payment of resale levy, unless they have previously sold their first subsidised HDB flats elsewhere and have opted to pay resale premium or levy on the next direct purchase flat from HDB. The amount of resale premium or levy to be paid will depend on when their first subsidised flats were sold. According to HDB's record, 87% of the lessees at Hillview Estate will not be required to pay any resale premium or levy. For the small group of lessees who need to pay resale premium or levy, they have currently a few options to choose from: 1) They can pay the resale premium together with the selling price of the replacement flat. This can then be paid using CPF or through the mortgage loan taken from HDB. 2) They can re-opt to pay the graded resale levy based on the lower percentages prevailing at the time of resale (plus the 5% interest since then), instead of the current higher percentages of resale. 3) They can sell the existing flat together with the rehousing benefits in the open market to eligible buyers, instead of taking up a replacement flat themselves. In this way, they will not be required to pay the resale premium or levy. With the sale proceeds that would include a premium fetched for the rehousing benefits, they can buy an equivalent resale flat from the open market with some cash balance. 4) They can transfer the existing flat to eligible persons, eg, family members. The rehousing benefits will then be based on the transferor or the transferee's eligibility, whichever is more restrictive. Notwithstanding these measures, I have asked my Ministry officials to take a look at how this group of lessees can be further assisted if they still have problems paying the resale premium or levy.

Sir, the Minister has not answered the other parts of my question, ie, (b) what was the basis of the quantum of compensation; (c) what is the purpose of acquiring those flats; and (d) when did the HDB decide to acquire those flats. I have got a further supplementary question. Will the HDB consider giving a waiver for third-time buyers of HDB flats requiring them to borrow at market interest rates?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thought I have answered the questions. What was the basis of the quantum of compensation? It is on market value as at the date of the announcement. What is the purpose of acquiring these flats? We acquire them because these sites show potential for higher intensity development. When did the HDB decide to acquire those flats? We announced this on 21st March 1999. On his fourth question of whether we would grant a waiver to third-time buyers, our policy so far is that every Singaporean family will enjoy two concessionary mortgage loans. The third loan will have to be at market interest rate.

Sir, does intensive development mean building condominiums there?

Intensive development would cover both more intensive public housing as well as higher value private housing. This means that the site reflects higher potential for redevelopment, and we acquire these sites. We redevelop them for the interest of the country and we share the benefits with the lessees. We pay the lessees market price for their existing flats. We assure them a new flat in the vicinity at a price which is subsidised, and we give them an extra 20% discount. So the benefits of the redevelopment are shared between the lessees and the country.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the Minister for his answer. On the resale premium, I would like to inform the Minister that about 15% of the residents will have to pay the premium, and they have sold their flats five or 10 years ago. If they have not been affected by the SERS scheme, they may not have to pay the resale levy or premium. I would ask the Minister whether he would consider waiving the levy payment.

Sir, let me explain the situation of these cases who are required to pay resale premium or levy. Basically, they have already enjoyed a subsidised flat from the Government. They bought a subsidised flat from the Government many years ago. They sold away this flat. At the point of selling the flat, you have to decide whether to pay a levy on the flat that you sell or that you pay a premium on the next flat that you buy from the Government. So when these people sold their flats, they had to opt. Either they decide to pay the levy or they decide to pay the premium. Many of them decide to pay the premium. When they sold their first flat, they have already made an undertaking that when they buy the next flat from the Government, they will pay a 10% or 20% premium. Now, when they are buying this flat from the Government, we are asking them to pay the premium. So this is part of what they have decided, because if they have paid the levy, now they would not have to pay the premium. So you cannot say that just because they have opted to pay the premium, now they should be excused. Then what happens to all those people who have paid the levy when they sold off their first flats? It is not fair to the other group. So we say that for these people who are affected by the premium that they have paid, we are prepared to back-track the decision, go back to the original date when they sell their flat, pay the premium as what the others have done, plus the 5% interest since then, which is very fair. If a lessee cannot pay, he can sell his flat to somebody and he does not have to pay the premium. The flat that he sells today in Hillview Estate to another person in the open market attracts a higher price because it comes with the option to buy another brand new flat in the Bukit Gombak area with a discount and all the benefits associated with SERS. So if he is not happy with buying a new flat from the HDB, he can sell his existing flat which will fetch a higher price than the current market value. Why? This is because it comes with a rehousing option. With the price that he gets from his present flat, he can buy back the same type of flat, the same remaining lease and still have some cash balance in his pocket. So it is eminently fair. They have so many options that they can choose.

asked the Minister for Education whether the statements of political organisations in the National University of Singapore to express their views on issues of public interest, have first to be approved by the University administration before they can be released to the press and the public.

Mr Speaker, Sir, our universities do not prohibit students from expressing their views on various issues, including those of public interest. Indeed, students have conveyed their views on various matters through the media in their personal capacities. From time to time, student organisations have done so too.

Sir, the Minister has not answered the question. They want to issue those statements, but are these statements vetted by the university authorities?

Sir, for the benefit of Mr Chiam, I will repeat my answer. Our universities do not prohibit students from expressing their views on various issues, including those of public interest. Indeed, students have conveyed their views on various matters through the media in their personal capacities. From time to time, student organisations have done so too.

asked the Minister for Manpower, with the growth in the chemical, electronics, financial and information technology industries and the effect on workers' health from waste and chemical disposal giving rise to the risk of chemical contamination and leakage as well as from prolonged working hours on the computers, what measures are being taken by his Ministry to review the Factories Act to make it a more broad-based legislation.

Manpower): Mr Speaker, Sir, the current Factories Act in Singapore provides for the safety, health and welfare of persons working in premises defined as "factories". Factories within the chemical and electronics industries are therefore covered under the Factories Act. The workers in the financial and information technology industries including those who have to work with computers are not presently covered under the Act. The workforce covered by the Act is about 700,000, which is about one-third of the total workforce. Since its enactment in 1958, the Factories Act has been amended several times. The last amendment in 1995 extended the coverage of the Act to premises such as laboratories, warehouses and aircraft parking bays. My Ministry is considering further extension of the coverage to workers engaged in maintenance work on the MRT and LRT, ie, repair or maintenance work carried out on any rail, track, including viaducts and tunnels. However, there is a limit to which the Factories Act can be extended, beyond which the term "factories" would become meaningless. My Ministry is currently reviewing the safety health legislation to ensure that workers, including knowledge workers of the future, will be adequately protected at work. New legislation on Occupational Safety and Health may be required to cover such workplaces and to promote greater self-regulation by employers and manufacturers of machinery, equipment and work tools.

asked the Minister for Communications if he will consider amending the law so as to protect passengers on aeroplanes from acts of air rage. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Communications (Dr Yaacob Ibrahim) (for the Minister for Communications): Mr Speaker, Sir, I agree with Mr Rai that air rage is a menace, which needs to be dealt with firmly. Under our laws, it is already an offence for an individual to imperil the safety of an aircraft or any person on board by any disorderly conduct. Such an offender passenger, if convicted, is liable to a fine not exceeding $5,000 or to an imprisonment term of one year or both. Criminal acts carried out on board a Singapore aircraft can also be prosecuted under our Penal Code. Nevertheless, the Ministry of Communications is now reviewing the legislation, including the penalties, to see how these can be made more effective in curbing air rage.

The following Question stood in the name of Mr Ong Ah Heng - 15. To ask the Minister for Communications since the implementation of the Bus Lane Enforcement Camera System (Buscam) for 9 route services in February 1999, (a) how many motorists have been booked as at 31st March 1999; and (b) whether the Buscam has been effective in assisting the public buses to provide a smooth and punctual service during peak hours and, if so, whether his Ministry will consider implementing it to all services.

Question No. 15, Sir.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Bus Lane Enforcement Camera System (Buscam) was first introduced on two bus services (Service Nos. 51 and 97) in April 1997 to discourage motorists from encroaching into dedicated bus lanes during the peak hours. In February 1999, Buscam was extended to cover 10 bus services (eight SBS services Nos. 7, 8, 51, 67, 81, 93, 97 and 147, and two TIBS services Nos. 854 and 855). Currently, LTA processes about 950 violations each month, or about 4 violations per service per day. Buscam has been effective in assisting scheduled buses to travel more smoothly in the bus lanes during peak hours. According to the bus operators, buses have been able to improve on their schedule adherence and bus journey time. LTA, however, will continue to monitor the effectiveness of Buscam with the bus operators and extend the system to more bus services as and when necessary. mammograms)

asked the Minister for Health what measures are being taken to educate women on the importance of regular screening for breast cancer; and whether he will consider allowing women to use their Medisave to pay for mammograms.

(for the Minister for Health): Mr Speaker, Sir, my Ministry recognises that breast cancer has been increasing steadily and is now the commonest cancer among women in Singapore. Our polyclinics have run Well Women Clinics for over 10 years which include screening for breast cancer and health education on the disease. We are working hand in hand with relevant organisations like the Singapore Cancer Society, the Breast Cancer Foundation, the National Cancer Centre and hospitals, on further expanding our programmes to control breast cancer. These programmes include health education, promotion of regular screening for the early detection of breast cancer and updated treatment modalities aimed at improving the survival and well-being of breast cancer patients. Over the last 10 years, my Ministry has held two large National Cancer Education Programmes, in addition to the on-going public education to reach out to the target population. During the Breast Cancer Awareness Month, jointly launched in October last year by my Ministry, the Singapore Cancer Society and the Breast Cancer Foundation, several innovative and interesting programmes were used to highlight the importance of breast cancer and of regular screening. My Ministry plans to organise this Breast Cancer Awareness Month as an annual event. Last year, MOH also set up a Breast Cancer Workgroup involving leading authorities in breast cancer control from both the public and private sectors. This is part of the MOH Committee on Women's Health, which is chaired by myself. This Workgroup is tasked to recommend measures to further improve the control of breast cancer in Singapore and to improve acceptance of programmes for early detection and improved cure of breast cancer, by women in Singapore. Medisave is designed to help patients pay for acute hospitalisation expenses. Exceptions have been made for certain expensive outpatient treatments, such as radiotherapy and chemotherapy for cancer, and renal dialysis. To ensure that Medisave is not prematurely depleted, it is important that we extend Medisave coverage only to treatments that are proven, cost-effective and are expensive in terms of the patient's out-of-pocket payments. My Ministry is looking into the possibility of extending Medisave coverage to mammograms. In considering this, my Ministry will bear in mind that charges for mammogram range between $100 and $170 and that screening by mammography is an important measure for the early detection of breast cancer, which in turn contributes to improved survival and well being of the patient.

Sir, I understand that the World Health Organisation recommends that mothers should breast feed their babies at least for the first four months from birth. Does the Singapore Government make the same recommendation?

Even though this question is not related to the Question asked, I would like to assure the Member that my Ministry has been promoting breast feeding among mothers who deliver in our restructured hospitals and Government hospitals.

asked the Minister for Communications whether there are any plans to improve the public transportation system serving Temasek Polytechnic to cater to the large number of people attending full-time courses as well as part-time skills redevelopment and upgrading courses at the Polytechnic.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in 1995, when Temasek Polytechnic shifted to its present campus at Tampines, SBS introduced new bus services and improved the existing ones to serve the polytechnic. Since then, SBS has beefed up these services to cater to the growing student demand. Today, there are four bus services (SBS 8, 15, 23 and 69) with a total of 67 buses serving the polytechnic. These services provide easy access to nearby Bedok and Tampines MRT stations, and to major roads such as Eunos Link, Paya Lebar Road and Bendemeer Road where transfers are readily available. In addition, Townlink Service 291 which serves Tampines is available at Tampines Street 81 which is within walking distance of the Polytechnic. LTA has asked SBS to monitor the demand for bus services by Temasek Polytechnic students and to increase the number of buses where necessary.

asked the Minister for Communications whether the Land Transport Authority has undertaken a comprehensive study of the public transport needs for Jurong West Extension Housing and Development Board Estate and, if so, what steps have been taken to implement the recommendations of such study.

Sir, when new housing estates are being developed, LTA and the bus companies will work with the HDB to study the public transport needs of these new estates and draw up a conceptual bus plan for the town. The bus services are introduced in tandem with the growth and development of the housing estates. LTA and the bus companies monitor the usage of the bus services to ensure that they are adequate to meet the transport needs of the residents. In the case of Jurong West Extension housing estate, SBS has worked out a conceptual bus plan to serve the estate. Its immediate plan is to amend its Service 243 to a dual service loop to serve the residents along Jurong West Street 62, as Street 62 is a new road that was recently completed. As the town develops and demand for services grows, SBS will improve the bus services.

Sir, I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he is aware that the Boon Lay bus terminal and the MRT station are overcrowded at peak hours and it is due to the large increase in the population in the vicinity. As such, would his Ministry also consider improving the facilities in those two areas?

Sir, we are aware of the congestion taking place at the Boon Lay Bus Interchange and MRT station area. I am sure Mr Ravindran is familiar with what is happening in the area. I would not go into the details. But we have taken some measures to improve accessibility to the area. LTA has constructed an extension to Boon Lay Way from the cul-de-sac (Boon Lay MRT station) to the west to connect with Pioneer Road North and Upper Jurong Road. This extension, in fact, will be opened tomorrow, Friday, 16th April 1999. When it is opened, it will allow traffic to directly access the Boon Lay Bus Interchange and MRT station area from the west. The bus operators are also looking into how the bus services to the bus interchange could be better routed to run along the newly completed road to further reduce congestion along the existing stretch of Boon Lay Way.

asked the Minister for National Development whether the Government will allow real estate investment trust in Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the answer is yes.

Order for Second Reading read. 1.28 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This Bill proposes the following amendments to the Parliamentary Elections Act and the Presidential Elections Act: (a) to introduce more efficient authentication methods; (b) to have a common cut-off date to determine voter eligibility and change of address; (c) to extend the powers of election agents to appoint polling and counting agents; and (d) to modify the election agent system for the Presidential Elections. I will deal with each of them in turn. (A) Ballot paper authentication Let me first explain the problems of the current system of authenticating ballot papers. On Polling Day, a voter is given a ballot paper by the Presiding Officer to mark a candidate or a group of candidates of his choice. The ballot paper is perforated with the official mark made by a perforator as proof that the ballot paper is an authorised one. The perforator is a precision instrument which is delicate to handle. Those unfamiliar with its usage tend to jam it when attempting to perforate the ballot paper. This causes the ballot paper to be stuck to the perforator. In trying to remove the paper, it often ends up torn. These perforators, belonging to the Elections Department, were purchased in the 1950s and are relics. With the passage of time, they are prone to breakdowns despite regular servicing. The Elections Department has therefore been looking at more efficient means to authenticate ballot papers. The Elections Department is proposing that ballot papers be henceforth authenticated in the form of a pre-printed security pattern, rubber-stamping or other markings. Clause 4 of the Bill amends section 40 of the Parliamentary Elections Act to provide for the authentication of ballot papers by these new methods. Clause 9(2) amends the corresponding section of the Presidential Elections Act for the same purpose. Clause 5 amends section 42(2) of the Parliamentary Elections Act to provide for an election official to either affix or stamp or mark the ballot paper to officially complete the authentication, if a ballot paper has not been fully authenticated. Clause 9(3) amends the corresponding section of the Presidential Elections Act for the same purpose. Even with the change in the method of authentication, a ballot paper shall be rejected if it is not fully and properly authenticated by a pre-printed design, stamped, marked or initialled by the Presiding Officer. Clause 7 amends section 50(1) of the Parliamentary Elections Act and clause 9(6) amends the corresponding section of the Presidential Elections Act for this purpose. (B) Common cut-off date to determine voter eligibility/address Now, let me explain the rationale for aligning the cut-off date for changes of addresses with the cut-off date for voter eligibility. Currently, the cut-off date for voter eligibility is 1st July or such other cut-off date as specified by the Minister. Following the cut-off date for voter eligibility, the Registers of Electors are printed and exhibited for public inspection for 14 days. However, the present cut-off date for changes of addresses is the last day for public inspection of the Registers of Electors. With two different cut-off dates, the Registers are therefore produced twice. Let me give this as an example. In the 1996 Registers of Electors, there were two cut-off dates, ie, 15th April for voter eligibility, and 23rd May 1996 for the changes of addresses. In this instance, the Registers had to be produced twice. One set of Registers was produced on 9th May 1996 for public inspection on voter eligibility, and the subsequent set was produced on 27th June 1996 after the public inspection to incorporate fresh changes of addresses up to 23rd May 1996. This is unproductive and a waste of resources. With the proposed amendment for a common cut-off date for both voter eligibility and changes of addresses, the same Registers of Electors will be printed, exhibited for public inspection, and subsequently certified for use. No reprinting will be done. Should there be any amendments as a result of the public inspection, they can be produced as additions or deletions to the same Registers of Electors. With one common cut-off date, the period between the production and exhibition of Registers for public inspection and certification is reduced, as there is no processing of address changes. Clause 3 amends section 13(4) of the Parliamentary Elections Act to exclude alterations to the Registers of Electors on account of changes of addresses notified on or before the last day of inspection of the register prior to the certification. With this amendment, the Registration Officer will prepare the Registers of Electors based on the addresses of electors as recorded by the Commissioner of National Registration as of 1st July or the common cut-off date specified by the Minister. He will not be allowed to accept any change of address made after 1st July or the prescribed common cut-off date. (C) Empowering Election Agents to appoint Polling and Counting Agents Mr Speaker, Sir, let me now explain why there is a need to amend the Parliamentary Elections Act to empower election agents to appoint counting and polling agents. Currently, in a Group Representation Constituency (GRC), there is a Principal Election Agent and a number of Election Agents. Only the Principal Election Agent can appoint polling and counting agents. This involves much administrative work, which could be done by other Election Agents. Clause 6 amends section 49 of the Parliamentary Elections Act to allow the Election Agent of any candidate in a group, in addition to the Principal Election Agent for that group, to appoint counting agents. Clause 9(5) amends the corresponding section of the Presidential Elections Act for the same purpose. Similarly, the election agents of candidates in a group will be allowed to appoint polling agents. This will relieve the workload of the Principal Election Agent, who is currently the only one allowed to appoint polling agents. Clause 8 amends section 64(1A) of the Parliamentary Elections Act and clause 9(8) amends the corresponding section of the Presidential Elections Act for this purpose. Presidential Elections Act (Cap 218) Sir, I now come to the Presidential Elections Act amendment. The counting of ballot papers is undertaken in counting places, which are usually located in schools and community centres. The results of the count at each counting place are tallied at constituency level by a number of Assistant Returning Officers. Once these results are tallied, they are transmitted to the Returning Officer who will then add up the results of all the constituencies. For the first Presidential Elections held on 28th August 1993, only one election agent could be appointed for each candidate. This was found to be inadequate, as there was much administrative work to be done. Clause 9(7) therefore amends section 43 of the Presidential Elections Act to provide for the appointment of up to 20 persons as Election Agents for each Presidential candidate, of whom one shall be appointed the Principal Election Agent. As there would be up to 20 Election Agents, one of whom is the Principal Election Agent, there is a need to differentiate or identify the main roles of the Principal Election Agent. These roles are spelt out in the relevant clauses in the Bill. Clause 9(4) amends section 31A(2) of the Presidential Elections Act to make it mandatory for the Returning Officer to inform the Principal Election Agent of a presidential candidate of the counting places. Clause 9(5) amends section 32 of the same Act to provide that only the Principal Election Agents or presidential candidates may be present at any principal counting place where the votes are eventually added. Clause 9(14) amends section 49 to require personal expenses of the candidate exceeding $1,000 to be paid by his Principal Election Agent. This is a change from the current position where the sole Election Agent is responsible for paying such expenses. The same clause also amends section 56 of the Presidential Elections Act to impose on the Principal Election Agent the sole obligation to file the returns on election expenses. Section 64(2) of the Act is also amended to require the Principal Election Agent to inform the Returning Officer of the candidate's campaign offices in each polling district. Mr Speaker, Sir, these amendments are necessary to further improve our election processes without compromising the security of the process. The amendments in this Bill are practical changes to enhance and fine-tune the current electoral processes, and hence make our elections, be it the Presidential Election or the Parliamentary Election, more streamlined and efficient. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir, for giving me this opportunity. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister has comprehensively dealt with the proposed amendment to the Bill. I would like to share some of the concerns which I have. First of all, we have had very fair elections from 1959 to now. There is no question ever raised as to the secrecy of the vote. The secrecy of the vote is protected and I hope the Minister will reiterate this position again today, that the changes will not affect in any way but will in fact improve the system. Sir, another suggestion which I have is this. Although we have had fairly fair elections, in other countries (in Africa and Asia), the United Nations (UN) has to observe the electoral process. Here, we have been fortunate. May I ask the Government to consider whether it will be in the long term interest of Singapore to have an independent election commission, which is a practice in many other countries? Sir, the Presidential Election is likely to take place this year. I am glad that the amendment is being made. And may I again urge political parties not to take part in the elections and leave the electoral process as non-partisan, which had been done in the last election. Sir, before I end my speech, may I say that the reason why we have had very clean and fair elections since 1959 is because of what the political parties themselves have done and the people have taken the trouble to vote in fair and independent elections. Democracy is still young in Singapore. It is very important for us to have a system whereby the public is assured that the electoral process would always be protected.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to focus on the amendment which provides for the authentication of ballot papers by new means, instead of by perforators. There are two larger issues or principles involved here. The first principle is that every vote should be genuine. In other words, that there should be no false votes by fictitious persons or votes by persons masquerading as other persons. The second principle is that every vote should be secret. The Amendment Bill seeks to update techniques for providing for an official mark on the ballot papers for authentication. Since the authentication of ballot papers is precisely to ensure that the first principle of genuineness of the vote is upheld, I therefore do not see any problems on this score. The question, however, that I have is: do the new authentication methods uphold the second principle, that of secrecy of the vote? I note that section 40(3) of the Parliamentary Elections Act, which is just before the proposed insertion of the new authentication clause, states that, "Each ballot paper shall have a number printed on the back and shall have attached a counterfoil with the same number printed on the face." If this is the case, then it is technically possible to trace how an individual voted by matching his name and IC number on the counterfoil against the serial number on the ballot paper. Could the Minister please clarify whether this is indeed the case, and whether the vote is indeed secret? In addition, could the Minister please clarify the purpose of these serial numbers? This is in order to allay fears that those who vote for the Opposition could be identified and, therefore, possibly included in the black book of the Government which would be counter to the daily cherished democratic principle that elections should be free and fair. In conclusion, to the extent that the Bill before the House does not in any way impinge upon the two principles: (1) that the vote should be genuine; and (2) that every vote should be secret, I support the Bill.

Sir, I only have three points to raise. Firstly, how does the Elections Department ensure that every ballot paper is fully authenticated and does not end up being void by default? Secondly, is there any procedure where it would ensure proper authentication of every ballot paper that is being issued? Thirdly, the question of serial numbers printed on the ballot papers, which was raised by Dr Lee. I would like to know whether it is necessary to have the serial number in view of the new authentication method. Would the Minister clarify why is there a need for the serial number to be printed on the ballot paper and what is the purpose of the serial number?

Sir, I thank the Members for their comments and questions. First, on Mr Rai's question on an election commission. I do not think there is any doubt that our Elections Department has carried out its duties faithfully, dutifully, and without any fear and favour. As he himself has said, our elections since 1959 have been clean and fair. So far, there has been no allegation that the Department has been unfair. At every election, a Returning Officer is appointed from among the senior civil servants who would ensure that the whole process is carried out smoothly. And there is no question that the whole process has been done properly. There had been very few election petitions to the courts to open up the vault to check the ballot papers or to question the whole election process. The results speak for themselves. Since the system works well and the Elections Department is doing a good job, I do not see any need for an election commission. Sir, the next question which all our three colleagues mentioned here is the secrecy of the vote. This subject of secrecy of the vote is, I suppose, as long as we have elections in Singapore. Members may not know that this subject has been raised periodically and, every time, when it is raised answers are given. Sometimes, we forget the answers and sometimes we are still wondering whether the answers are indeed what they are. We want the people's fears to be allayed. Sir, the Government has stated very clearly why we need to have the serial number on the ballot paper as well as to have a counterfoil. The counterfoil is to establish that indeed such a ballot paper has been issued. On the ballot paper itself, the number is to establish clearly that there is indeed such a ballot paper and there is a corresponding counterfoil to show that there is such a ballot paper. It shows the genuineness of the ballot paper. The writing of the person's number on the counterfoil is to show that that particular ballot paper is given to that particular voter so that in the event that there is a dispute, such a vote can actually be traced and that it is a genuine vote and not a forgery. This numbering of ballot papers is not an invention of the PAP Government. I think people tend to forget that. The British introduced this in the late 40s. I am told that in Britain, New Zealand and Canada, they have similar provisions in the law for the numbering of ballot papers. One of the reasons for numbered ballot papers is to prevent crooked election practices, such as the stuffing of election ballot boxes. More importantly, after the election, all the unused ballot papers, as well as the counterfoils, are put into the boxes and sealed and they are then kept in the vault of the High Court. The boxes cannot be opened without an election petition and without the permission of the court, and permission will only be granted if there is a petition to show why such a process needs to be taken. Six months after the polling day, these boxes are then taken out of the vault of the court and brought to the incinerator for burning. When they are taken out, anybody could go and take a look at them and see whether indeed the seals of the ballot boxes were broken, and anyone had seen the ballot papers to find out who voted for whom. That process is transparent and I am sure Mr Low Thia Khiang and Mr Chiam - I do not know about my other colleagues - have actually witnessed this process. The members of the press are very keen to see this. Every time, the Elections Department announces that the ballot papers would be taken out for burning, they would go to the High Court and look at the boxes to ensure that the boxes' seals had not been broken. This controversy came out again in the 1976 general election and Dr Lee Siew-Choh, the Opposition leader then, had said that nobody, not even the Government, would know who voted for whom. He was trying to assure the voters not to worry and that their vote was secret. So if Dr Lee Siew-Choh has also said that the vote is secret, and we have been saying that the vote is secret, I think the people should not doubt that the vote is indeed secret. In the rally speech in Queen Street in December 1976, Dr Lee Siew-Choh told his audience not to be afraid to vote, I suppose not to be afraid to vote for the Barisan Sosialis, as the vote is secret and he also explained the elaborate process that had to be followed before the ballot papers could be taken out to be examined. In 1991, my colleague, Prof. Jayakumar, also explained that the numbered ballot papers provided the means to settle allegations of election fraud. If voters alleged that the ballots had been switched with forgeries, the numbered ballots would then allow the charge to be settled conclusively. With the numbered ballot papers, no one can accuse the Government of rigging an election. If we do away with the numbering of ballot papers, as Mr Low's last point seems to suggest, I think we will also face a new problem. The new problem would be: how do we know that some of these ballot papers are genuine? How do you trace that they are genuine? Even with the mark, stamp or signature, it will not be easy to tell. But with the number in the counterfoil and the number at the back of the ballot paper, we can then compare the two and say, "Yes, indeed, such a paper was issued and the counterfoil is here, apart from the stamping, the marking and the perforation.".

Sir, the Minister has not answered my query about the authentication procedures. How do you ensure that every ballot paper is indeed properly authenticated and not void?

I think Mr Low knows the process quite well. Just briefly, it is something like this. When the voter goes to the polling station, he presents his IC and his name is called. The Presiding Officer or his assistant will then check to make sure that he is indeed a registered voter. Once it is confirmed that he is, the Presiding Officer will then record on the ballot paper his IC number and give him the ballot paper. That ballot paper, before it is given to him, is perforated with a perforator, in the presence of everybody. But with the present system, sometimes when the Presiding Officer pulls out the perforator, the ballot paper is torn and when the vote is actually counted, there could be questions about that vote. With the new system, it is the same thing. The Presiding Officer or his assistant will ensure that it is properly stamped in the presence of the voter that he is indeed the voter and that is indeed the piece of paper from the counterfoil, perforated, stamped, marked or signed. So that process is totally transparent. He will then take his ballot paper to the ballot box, mark it and put into the box. If there is any doubt at all, the whole process can be questioned there.

Sir, can I clarify with the Minister? The new authentication will not require a perforation, just only a stamp. Am I correct?

Yes, he is correct. It could be a stamp or a marking.

But no perforation.

What we are doing now is to provide for other methods of authenticating the ballot paper. What is provided for in the law now is perforation with a perforator. So we are making provisions for it to be also authenticated by a stamp, a marking or a signature.

Sir, this may not be related to the Bill, but I would like the Minister to comment. I have received feedback that the booth for the marking of the ballot paper does not seem to be private in the sense that somebody may be able to see how you mark at the booth. I wonder whether the Elections Department will consider improving the booth with maybe a box-like enclosure where you have some cover at the back. Now it is quite exposed. You can mark, but people will know where you mark.

If that is indeed a problem, I will ask the Elections Department to study it. From what I see, and what I have experienced, indeed there is enough space and privacy for the person to hide his ballot paper and mark it. So there is no need to worry about the secrecy of his vote. Nobody is going to peep at the other person and see what he does with his vote.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act was enacted on 21st October 1955. Since then, Parliament has extended it nine times. The last time was five years ago in 1994. The Act will expire on 20th October this year. Hence, this Bill which seeks to further extend the Act for another five years to enable Government to continue dealing effectively with secret society or "SS" activities, drug trafficking and serious crimes. The Bill also seeks to give officers from the Central Narcotics Bureau or "CNB" certain powers which the Police already has under the Act. This will enhance CNB's operational efficiency and streamline its work process. Rationale for the Act The Act provides for the maintenance of public order and detention of criminals in the interests of public safety, peace and good order. Let me, however, emphasise, at the outset, that we do not invoke the Act as a convenient alternative to prosecution in court. The Government's consistent approach is always to consider a court conviction in the first instance. Hence, the vast majority of cases are prosecuted. But prosecution is not always possible, not because there is no evidence, but because witnesses and accomplices are not prepared to testify in court for fear of reprisal or for other reasons. This is especially so when accused persons are associated with SS activities, organised crime gangs or drug trafficking syndicates. SS members often refuse to give evidence in court against fellow members. As for drug traffickers, witnesses are usually drug addicts who refuse to testify against their suppliers because of their vulnerable status or for fear of reprisal. An additional difficulty is that traffickers have resorted to using couriers and go-betweens to conceal their involvement, thus making it harder to apprehend them. Since the Act's enactment in 1955, it has proven to be an effective tool in suppressing SS activities in Singapore. This is evident in the number of SS incidents recorded by Police which has fallen from 416 in 1959, to 10 in 1988, and 3 in 1998. The number of Detention Orders (DOs) issued against SS members has also fallen from 72 in 1988, to 42 in 1998. As for drug trafficking, the Act has enabled the CNB to cripple many drug syndicates and shatter their distribution networks in Singapore. This has contributed to the much improved drug situation today. As a result, the number of DOs issued against drug traffickers has also fallen from 192 in 1988 to 48 last year. The Act has also been invoked against criminals who have committed serious crimes, such as murder where witnesses were not prepared to testify in court. However, let me assure Members that the Act is used sparingly for these cases. Indeed, the last time the Act was so invoked was in 1994 when 5 Thai nationals were detained for their involvement in the murders of security guards and construction workers while committing thefts of surveying equipment or "theodolites". Since then, no DO has been issued against any serious crime offender. Overall, the number of DOs issued has declined from 270 in 1988 to 90 in 1998. The number under detention has also declined from 1,260 in 1988 to 463 in 1998. These statistics prove the point that the Act is effective in suppressing SS activities, drug trafficking and other organised criminal syndicates. Does it therefore mean that we can now do away with the Act? The answer is an emphatic "no". The Act still plays a useful role today. We cannot be complacent. Despite strict laws and tough police enforcement, SS incidents still occur today. For example, in March last year, a group of triad members viciously attacked rival triad members at a coffeeshop with gangland weapons, such as home-made samurai swords and parangs. Four innocent customers were seriously injured in the attack. There is no indication that we have completely eliminated secret societies in Singapore. They still pose a menace. Apart from rioting, SS members are involved in syndicated criminal activities, such as extortion, illegal moneylending and smuggling of illegal immigrants. For example, in May 1997, the Police detected some SS members extorting `protection' money from contractors soliciting for renovation contracts at several new housing estates. Contractors who refused to pay up were chased away. This lucrative monopoly led to an atmosphere of lawlessness as different gangs wrestled for territorial control of the estates. The gangs' activities went undetected initially as victimised contractors kept quiet for fear of reprisal. Police acted swiftly and crippled five `protection rackets' between September and December that year. 23 SS members were arrested under the Act. 15 of them were issued with DOs and 8 with Police Supervision Orders. Since then, Police has not detected any `protection racket' at new housing estates. The Act has therefore provided Police with the arsenal to nip the problem in the bud. SS gangs are also involved in illegal moneylending. In June last year, Police crippled a loanshark syndicate operating in the Geylang area. The syndicate organiser cum financier had recruited about 50 SS members to be his loansharks and financed some of them. These loansharks assaulted and intimidated debtors and their families, vandalising their property if the repayments were late. The victims could not identify the leader because he operated behind-the-scene. He had no direct dealings with the debtors. It was under these circumstances that Police invoked the Act to detain the organiser cum syndicate leader, together with a henchman. I now move on to street gangs. The SS scene today is characterised by loosely-organised street gangs with fluid membership. Despite Police action, new gangs are detected every year. In 1998, 55 street gangs were detected and dealt with by Police under the Act compared to 79 in 1997 and 45 in 1996. These street gang members are not as vicious as traditional SS members but they still fight over trivial matters, such as staring incidents, passing of remarks and accidental contact, thus impacting law and order and lowering Singaporeans' sense of safety. We must therefore deter these street gangs from becoming full-fledged secret societies. Where necessary, the Act will be used. Sir, I have mentioned the above examples to show why, despite the good law and order situation prevailing today, the Act is still necessary. Some Singaporeans may think, quite naively, that the Act was enacted in 1955 to deal with rampant gang lawlessness, and therefore has no further use today. But, Sir, nothing is as far from the truth. The setting may have changed but the threat remains. Many countries are losing their battle against triads because of the lack of sufficiently deterrent penalties. The recent gangland warfare in Macau is a grim reminder of the violent nature of these triad groups. In an interview reported in the Straits Times on 25th May 1998, Mr Victor Ng, a Legislative Assembly member of the Preparatory Committee set up by China to oversee Macau's return to Chinese sovereignty, commented, and I quote: 'The sort of crimes being committed are very serious, and the government cannot control. It proves that the Macau government has no means, no capacity, to rule Macau in a lawful manner.' Another example, which those of us who have followed in the press would know, is the murder of Dr Victor Chang, the world-renowned heart surgeon, in Sydney in 1991. Two Malaysian triad members were convicted of killing him because he refused to accede to their extortion demands. Again, these are examples which highlight the danger of letting triads gain a foothold in any society. Law enforcement agencies must have sufficient teeth in their legal arsenal to deter such violent gangs. We must therefore constantly be on guard. Police has assessed that there are gangland members in Singapore and the region who are linked to prominent East Asian Gangs (EAGs) in Hong Kong and Taiwan. But these EAG members are discreet. They are not involved in triad activities, such as initiation ceremonies and extortion. However, they have the "muscle", the money and even the firepower to commit cross-border crimes. According to Police, EAGs consider Singapore to be an unattractive operational base. Police attributes this primarily to the deterring effect of the CL(TP) Act. But we cannot rule out the possibility of these triads transferring their operations here. Hence, Singapore needs the CL(TP) Act as our shield against this potential threat. Our law enforcement agencies must be well-equipped to counter any attempts by such triad groups to infiltrate Singapore. Singapore has, so far, managed to avoid the many pitfalls currently faced by other countries in dealing with organised triads and criminal gangs. The Act is a critical factor in deterring such foreign gangs from gaining a foothold in Singapore. Let me now turn to the drug situation. Drug trafficking is an extremely lucrative trade. Drug traffickers and syndicate leaders have become very sophisticated in their modus operandi. They stay clear from physical drug transactions by engaging money couriers, organisers and recruiters to conduct their trafficking businesses. Sir, although the drug situation in Singapore is under control, drug traffickers play a high stakes life-and-death game. They will not hesitate to do everything necessary to save their own skins. We have a duty to protect our people. Allowing the Act to lapse may be misinterpreted as a softening of our tough stance and a weakening of our ability to deal with drug trafficking. This may encourage international drug trafficking syndicates to use Singapore as a staging point for their illicit drug activities. More drugs will then find their way to the local population, resulting in higher `contamination' levels. Such a scenario has implications on crime. We should not expose ourselves to this possibility. In short, SS and drug trafficking activities have declined considerably but the threat of resurgence is very real. We therefore still need the strong deterrence offered by the Act. Having explained why the Act is still necessary today, let me assure Members that there are safeguards in the process. These safeguards ensure that Police and CNB cannot take the easy way out by invoking the Act when a person should instead be charged in court. They are both built into the Act itself as well as found in administrative procedures which ensure that enforcement agencies do not resort to using the Act without the strongest justification. First, any proposal by Police or CNB to detain a person under the Act or to place him under police supervision will be scrutinsed by senior officials in MHA and the Attorney-General's Chambers and indeed by the AG before the Detention or Police Supervision Order is issued. Departments cannot take the easy way out. They have to justify the use of the Act in every case. Second, an Advisory Committee comprising prominent private citizens such as Justices of the Peace, senior lawyers and a few community leaders scrutinise the investigations and documentary evidence and may examine investigation officers and witnesses. At the Committee's hearing, the detainees or supervisees may be represented by legal counsel. The Committee makes its recommendation to the President. I must reiterate that the Committee is not a rubber-stamping body. Over the past 10 years, the Committee has disagreed with MHA's recommendations on 12 occasions, by recommending instead that DOs be either revoked or changed to PSOs. We have taken the objections seriously and accepted the majority of these recommendations. Third, DOs are reviewed annually by a separate Review Committee, also comprising prominent private citizens. Hence, no detainee is just locked up and the key thrown away. The Review Advisory Committee members are distinct from the Advisory Committee, ensuring independent decision-making. Any recommendation to extend the detention for a further 12-month period must be approved by the President. And fourth, a separate Review Board, also with a different set of members, considers all cases of detention cases extending 10 years or more. This process ensures that longer term detainees' cases are specially looked at. Finally, this exercise of coming before Parliament every 5 years to renew the Act is an additional safeguard. An Advisory Committee Chairman has asked why the Act is temporary and not permanent. The reason is that, this way, the Government has to come to the House to justify the continued use of the Act every 5 years. Once again, let me assure this House that where there are witnesses willing to testify in court, we will charge the culprits in court. But where victims and accomplices refuse to testify in open court, the CL(TP) Act prevents the chief offenders from getting away scot-free. Even when invoked, the Act is not used as a blunt instrument. Depending on the gravity of the offence, either a Detention Order or a Police Supervision Order would be issued. Therefore, this allows for the exercise of flexibility based on the facts of each case. Let me now touch on the proposed amendments to the Act. Currently, only Police officers are empowered to arrest and detain a suspect without a warrant for not more than 24 hours under section 44 of the Act. Section 44(2) of the Act further empowers a police officer of the rank of Assistant Superintendent of Police or above to extend the detention period for another 24 hours. Under section 44(3) of the Act, a Police officer of or above the rank of Superintendent of Police may authorise further detention up to 14 days for investigation into the case to be completed. Under current practice, CNB must obtain authorisation from a Police officer of the appropriate rank to arrest and detain a suspected drug trafficker under the Act. CNB investigates a large number of drug trafficking cases under the Act - 51 in 1997 and 48 in 1998. The requirement for CNB to obtain authorisation from Police hampers CNB's effectiveness and efficiency. Therefore, Sir, it is proposed that Part V of the Act be amended to give CNB officers powers, similar to that of Police officers, to arrest and detain suspected drug traffickers and persons who had assisted these traffickers in one way or another, eg, in collecting monies. A new section 46A will be introduced to empower the Director, Deputy Director and Assistant Directors and other Narcotics Officers of CNB, to exercise the powers conferred on Police officers to detain and arrest suspected persons, and to enter and search premises to effect arrest. Under section 46A(2), any CNB officer holding the appointment of Assistant Director or above may exercise the powers conferred on a Police officer holding the rank of Assistant Superintendent of Police or above. Under section 46A(3), the Director or Deputy Director of CNB may exercise the powers conferred on a Police officer holding the rank of Superintendent of Police or above. Sir, this is a right move. CNB officers, like Police officers, are responsible law enforcement officers. In fact, currently, CNB officers can already exercise powers of a police officer under the Criminal Procedure Code in relation to investigation of drug offences under the Misuse of Drugs Act. Hence, this amendment plugs a gap. Sir, these amendments will allow CNB to be more efficient. The enhanced powers will only apply to drug trafficking-related cases, unless approved by the Minister. The Director and Deputy Director of CNB will be responsible for authorising investigations related to Criminal Law cases. These enhanced powers will thus be tightly controlled. As in the case of police officers, any abuse will be severely dealt with. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill. Singapore has always been recognised as one of the safest cities to live in. We have been enjoying a relatively low crime rate and free from any major organised crime activities. This fact has been acknowledged by almost any visitor who is living in or visited our country. It is because our Government takes the maintenance of public safety, peace and good order in Singapore seriously. We come down hard on criminals, although our policy in crime and punishment may have drawn some criticisms from the west. We have never apologised for our stand to punish criminals severely in order to protect victims. It is a well known fact that some major crimes such as drug trafficking, gambling, prostitution are secret society related. Although the menace of secret societies has been under control since the 60s and 70s, we must, however, be vigilant to ensure that they are kept under control at all times, as we face constant threat that their activities may surface not only from within but from the surrounding region. It is not unknown that from time to time, our police have detected importation of such secret society activities from as far as Hong Kong and Taiwan. It is important to have secret societies under control in order to keep major crime rates low. The Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act has to be extended because of its effectiveness in dealing with persons associated with secret societies, drug trafficking and other subversive activities. Some may argue and ask why our courts cannot deal with such criminals. Again, it is a well established fact that because of the depth of influence and the intimidating tactics these secret societies employ on the ordinary citizens are so effective, very often no witnesses are willing or dare to come forward to testify and therefore even if they are caught and every evidence points to their guilt, the culprit will often be set free. Perhaps one of the most illustrative examples of this is in the case of the famous American gangster, Al Capone. Everyone in America knew that he was the most notorious criminal controlling almost the whole underground during the prohibition period. Despite all the efforts by the most powerful law enforcement agencies in the US, including the FBI, CIA, Police, DA, at the end, they could only succeed in convicting him on a lesser charge under the IRA Act. Therefore, I have no doubt that in order to ensure a peaceful and safe environment in which our citizens' well-being is protected, the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act has to continue to be one of the very important law enforcement tools to be used against such criminals. I fully support the new section 46A in the Amendment Bill. It is only logical that the CNB officers should be given the same powers conferred upon a police officer, so that they can carry out their duties in dealing with drug offenders with greater efficiency and effectiveness. For those who argue that there may be abuse of such Act on the innocent, so far, it has not been proven that any person has been detained arbitrarily or wrongfully. This is because of the safeguards built into the Act that every case will be reviewed by the Advisory Committee consisting of people from all walks of life, from senior members of the Bar, professionals, Justices of Peace, academics, etc, to ensure that the decision is made by a cross-section of prominent citizens after a thorough review. However, I would like to ask the Minister whether the review report can be disclosed upon request, if necessary, to ensure that the whole process is truly transparent, thus eliminating any doubt whatsoever in the manner of administering the Act, and whether the identity of the persons who are appointed to this Advisory Committee could be made public, so as to lay to rest any doubt that the Act can be abused. With this, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank you for giving me this opportunity. As students of law, the concept of fairness and natural justice is ingrained in us. We learn very early in school that no man shall be condemned without a fair hearing. The fact that this law has a long life in the statute book and is still called temporary provisions is reflective of our philosophy. I hope that this will truly be temporary provisions but I am sanguine enough to believe that the law will be in existence for a long time to come. In 1955, Sir, William Goode, the then Colonial Secretary, moved the Second Reading of the Bill. Communist terrorism was on the rise and secret societies were a menace to society. There was no alternative. The British, who believe in natural justice, had no choice but to introduce this law. Sir, one of the most heartening things I would like to share in this House is the confidence the public has in our Police Force. I agree with the Minister that no person has been persecuted. Every case is thoroughly examined. But I agree with Mr Kenneth Chen that we should try to work out some transparency in the system. I am not for a moment doubting that our system is far from fair. We should improve on the system. The last time the Bill came before this House, there was some suggestion. I reiterate it again, Sir. The Minister will still be responsible for the appointment of members of the advisory committee. But may I ask that he invite the Academy of Law and the Chambers of Commerce to nominate one person to the committee. In this way, public confidence will be further increased. Sir, despite a very strong effort by the Police Force and the schools, we find that street corner gangs are increasing. Secret society activities have moved even to our schools, and this is most unfortunate. Sir, one of the reasons why people are prepared to come and invest in this country is because we have law and order. And I think this is the safest country in the world, and we must make it that way. I would have no hesitation in giving the power to the Minister, knowing full well that this power will never be abused. As a practising lawyer, I have had opportunities in the earlier days of my practice to represent some of these cases. A parent would come and tell us, "Oh, my son is innocent. Nothing has gone wrong." And when you face the advisory committee, the truth is there, and the truth is always that the Police have done their work thoroughly. As the Minister has pointed out, the Attorney-General's Chambers is consulted. Sir, in order to maintain the record of the safest city in the world, may I urge the Minister to take the necessary steps. While the law will still be there, we must allow the educational process to go on. Sir, I wholeheartedly support the proposed amendment to include section 46A. I think more than secret societies, drug pushers and traffickers are the most dangerous and heinous criminals in the world, and their tentacles spread all over the world, in million dollar businesses and million dollar operations. We must do everything to assist the international agencies and ourselves. We are going to have the world at large if we can see that this place is clean from these dangerous elements. Sir, as I have said earlier, as a lawyer, I am in a dilemma whether to support this Bill when I look at fundamental issues. But when I study the reality of the situation, I find that I cannot but agree wholeheartedly with the Minister. Sir, I support this Bill and I hope the House will support it.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank both Mr Kenneth Chen and Mr Rai for supporting the Bill. Sir, indeed, what they say is correct. The role of the private citizens in the process is important, because they play an important role to ensure that the process is indeed fair and that there is no abuse. When we talk about transparency, the fact is that the process, raison d'etre, is that witnesses do not want to testify. So that circumscribes the extent to which there can be transparency. But all the committees do their work carefully, fairly, examining every case and, as I have said, those cases where the committee has disagreed with the Ministry's order, we have also looked at their recommendations and in some of them, we have followed the committee's views. Sir, Mr Rai asked whether we should in fact have designated appointing authorities where we can invite recommendations, for example, from the Chambers of Commerce or whatever. Let me assure Mr Rai that the Ministry of Home Affairs takes much care in surveying the field to look at who is available and who is suitable. If we were to take his suggestion, we are in fact restricting our flexibility. Let us leave it this way where we do look at the composition of the various committees and the kind of work they do. We will continue to have a good mix of prominent people who have proven themselves in various fields. Like I have said before, there are 37 prominent citizens, of whom 11 are Justices of the Peace and about 30 lawyers. In the nature of the task at hand, there will be a need for lawyers to be there to examine the evidence available. At the same time, it is also good to get other views. Therefore, there is this mix. So let us leave it at that. But I think Mr Kenneth Chen's suggestion is worth considering. He asks whether we could have some publicity as to who these people are. That will instill some confidence in the system because a lot depends on them. We can consider that. The next time the Ministry of Home Affairs appoints or reappoints members to the various committees, we can consider making these appointments public.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time". The Private Hospitals and Medical Clinics Act (Chapter 248 of the 1985 Revised Edition) was passed in 1980 to provide for the control, licensing and inspection of private hospitals, medical clinics and clinical laboratories and to prohibit trading in human blood. The Act came into operation when its regulations were gazetted in 1991. The Act was passed in 1980 when most hospitals were run by the Government and the Act did not apply to them. With the restructuring of Government hospitals, the conversion of homes for the aged into nursing homes and the increasing number of private hospitals, clinics and clinical laboratories being set up, it was necessary to implement the law to oversee the operation of these healthcare institutions and uphold the high standard of medical care in Singapore. Regulations to the Act were finalised and the Act came into operation in 1991. My Ministry then established the Medical Audit and Accreditation Unit (MAAU) to license all private healthcare institutions, including the restructured hospitals, to regulate their professional standards and to audit their clinical activities. With recent changes in medical practice and rapid advance in medical technologies, there is need for some amendments to the legislative framework under which MAAU works. Before I brief the House on the amendments to the Bill in detail, let me present the three main objectives that my Ministry intends to achieve with these amendments. They are: (i) to ensure a high level of professional standard practised at health care establishments; (ii) to provide for greater flexibility in licensing the establishments; and (iii) to enhance our capability for regulatory enforcement. The Bill will help to ensure a high level of professional standard by providing, firstly, for : (a) more effective quality assurance (QA) programmes at health care establishments; and, (b) more effective medical audits carried out by my Ministry. QA programmes comprise a range of activities directed at ensuring the quality of patient care through objective and systematic monitoring, evaluation, identification of problems and action to improve the level and appropriateness of care. The programmes are by and large institutional activities for self-monitoring purposes. These have been established in all hospitals as a requirement for licensing since the implementation of the Private Hospitals and Medical Clinics Act in 1991. My Ministry monitors closely these activities by requiring hospitals to submit regular six monthly returns on clinical performance indicators such as unexpected deaths; perioperative deaths; unplanned re-admissions to hospitals; and unplanned returns to the operating theatres, and so on. We also require six monthly returns on any report of Committees of Inquiry into medical incidents as well as the results of tissue audit. The results of these returns are then closely scrutinised by my Ministry and in-depth medical audits are conducted if necessary. While it is important to retain the self-monitoring element in QA programmes, they are, however, based on a peer review process which requires doctors to evaluate and pass judgement on each other's professional performance. Understandably, many doctors have been reluctant to participate in QA committees because firstly, the findings of a QA committee under the current provision of the law are open to legal discovery and could provide the basis for legal action against the hospital. Secondly, QA committee members are exposed to personal liability for the opinions they have expressed and to legal suits for defamation by aggrieved doctors. But QA programmes must have the active involvement of doctors to be effective. There is therefore a need to formally recognise the roles and functions of QA committees and to provide the necessary safeguards for the hospital and members of the QA committees that will facilitate the conduct of effective QA programmes. Countries like Australia and the United States have also recognised the importance of effective quality assurance programmes in health care and have enacted legislation to address these legal issues. The Bill lays down more definitive requirements for hospital QA programmes. It will also enable the Minister to make regulations on the composition, procedures, duties and responsibilities of QA committees in hospitals and other health care establishments. The Bill will, secondly, enable my Ministry to conduct more effective medical audit programmes. To ensure that high standards of professional practice are maintained, it is necessary for my Ministry to conduct medical audits to evaluate the medical treatment that has been given to patients. To do so effectively, my Ministry must have access to the patient's medical records so that the clinical data, investigations performed, treatment prescribed and the outcomes of clinical management can be objectively reviewed and assessed for their quality and appropriateness. However, section 12(3) of the existing Act prohibits access to a patient's medical records except with the patient's consent. This prohibition is unduly restrictive for the purposes of statutory medical audit. Medical audits are conducted mostly on common medical conditions, and this should be done before any conclusion is reached on the quality of care. Obtaining the patient's consent at this stage will potentially cause undue alarm to the patient, and may raise doubts that some error in medical management has occurred, where none may have been made at all. The need for the patient's consent is also not practical when a large number of a particular type of patients is studied. For example, when we audited the appropriateness and outcome of caesarean sections performed for pregnant women under different clinical situations, we took a random sample of 10%. In 1997, out of 46,000 deliveries, some 12,600 or 27% were by caesarian section. A 10% sample for 1997 therefore entailed a study of 1,200 cases of caesarian sections. It is obviously impractical to ask each and every patient chosen in the sample for her consent to have her medical record examined. It will be more practical to allow access to medical records specifically and only for the purpose of statutory medical audit, while at the same time safeguarding the principle of medical confidentiality. I want to emphasise that the objective of having access to the medical records is for the purpose of studying the pattern of management of a particular group of patients and not for identification of the individual patient. The identity of the individual is protected and safeguarded under new provisions of the Bill (clause 10, section 12), which I will elaborate on later. My Ministry is selectively auditing areas of clinical practice where there is a large number of patients or high volume, where the cost is high, and where there may be a potential for `errant practice'. Examples of areas being audited are caesarean sections, hysterectomies, endoscopies, arthroscopies and balloon angioplasties. Most of the audits done so far have shown that there is a very high degree of conformity with acceptable "best practice". This is to the great credit of our medical profession. Where `deviations' are found, for example, with indications for performing caesarean sections, the doctors or professional bodies are given feedback to enable corrective action and improvement of practices. Sir, the manner in which healthcare is delivered is evolving rapidly. The second objective of the Bill is to provide for greater flexibility in licensing of healthcare establishments. The Act currently provides for only three types of licences: (1) Hospital licences for hospitals, nursing homes and maternity homes; (2) Medical clinic licences for medical and dental clinics; and (3) Clinical laboratory licences. Since the Act was passed, new types of health care establishments have emerged, for example, ambulatory surgical treatment centres, renal dialysis clinics and MRI centres. I have no doubt that this trend of new types of healthcare establishments being set up will continue. There is therefore a need to build greater flexibility into the Act for the licensing of new health care establishments which can then be better controlled through their own specific regulations. The third objective of the Bill is to enhance my Ministry's power of enforcement. The existing Act only allows my Ministry to inspect health care establishments but does not allow for the seizure of evidence which is frequently necessary for prosecution. The revision of the Private Hospitals and Medical Clinics Act will facilitate the enforcement work of my Ministry by allowing the seizure of evidence during raids especially on unlicensed premises. Presently, we have to rely on the police to exercise such powers. This is an unnecessary burden on the police and can be removed by enhancing the investigative powers of the officers acting under the authority of the Act. Currently, all offences under the Act require prosecution in court before any penalty can be imposed. For greater flexibility in enforcement, there is a need to provide for composition of offences especially for the more minor ones. The penalties for offences under the Act also need to be updated. Sir, I will now brief the House on the main provisions of the Bill which will address the concerns I have listed earlier. Under clause 10 of the Amendment Bill, a new section 10 is enacted to require the setting up of quality assurance committees in hospitals. To facilitate the conduct of effective quality assurance programmes in hospitals and health care establishments, the section provides that: (a) Documents arising from the deliberations of quality assurance committees cannot be compelled to be divulged to any court, tribunal, board or person; (b) Findings and recommendations made by quality assurance committees on changes to be made to practices, in particular healthcare establishments, shall not be used as evidence that the service or practice was inadequate or inappropriate; and (c) Members of quality assurance committees are protected from personal liability when they exercise their duties in good faith. These provisions are similar to legislation which has been enacted in the United States and in Australia to support QA programmes in health care. These two countries have also drawn up legislation to prevent forced legal disclosure of QA matters in hospitals and other healthcare establishments. They have also enacted legislation to protect members of QA committees from personal liability when they act in good faith. Clause 14 of the Amendment Bill also amends section 17 of the Act to allow the Minister to make regulations on the composition, procedures, duties and responsibilities of QA committees of healthcare establishments. Under clause 10 of the Amendment Bill, another new section 11 is enacted which provides for the access to medical records of patients notwithstanding that the prior consent of the patient has not been obtained in order to: (a) investigate whether this Act or any regulations made thereunder has been or is being contravened; or (b) to assess the quality and appropriateness of the services provided and the practices and procedures being carried out at the healthcare establishment. Section 12 of the existing Act which requires the patient's consent for access to medical records is therefore repealed. The new section 11 stipulates that the access to medical records without consent is allowed only for medical audit purposes. Access to medical records is also strictly confined to officers authorised by the Director of Medical Services. Under clause 10 of the Amendment Bill, a third new section, section 12, is enacted to prevent the disclosure of any information contained in a patient's medical record which has come to the knowledge of the Director of Medical Services or an authorised officer in the course of performing any duty under this Act. This provision safeguards the need for doctors to maintain confidentiality of medical information. It provides an essential balance to the provision which allows access to patients' medical records by authorised officers. The new section 12 only allows for disclosure of medical information for specific statutory purposes such as for disciplinary proceedings under the Medical Registration Act or the Dentists Act. The maximum penalty for wrongful disclosure of information under the Act has been increased from a fine of $2,000 to $5,000. Under clause 3 of the Amendment Bill, a new section 2A is enacted to allow the Director of Medical Services to authorise any person to assist in the administration of the Act. This section also provides for the Minister to establish one or more advisory committees to advise on matters pertaining to the administration of the Act. Under clause 13 of the Amendment Bill, a new section 16B is enacted to protect all authorised officers and members of advisory committees from legal liability for anything which is done in good faith in the performance of their duties under the Act. These amendments ensure that the appointed medical experts are adequately protected from any personal or professional liability in the exercise of their responsibility and judgement. Under clause 2 of the Amendment Bill, section 2 of the Act is amended to include the definition of a healthcare establishment as any premises or conveyance which is declared by the Minister to be an establishment that requires licensing under this Act. This will give my Ministry the flexibility to license new types of healthcare establishments as and when required. Under clause 10 of the Amendment Bill, a new section 11 provides the Director of Medical Services and authorised officers with additional powers to seize evidence, make copies or take extracts from relevant records or require the persons in charge of licensed establishments to do so when enforcing the Act. Under clause 13 of the Amendment Bill, a new section 16D is enacted to allow for the composition of offences up to a maximum of $2,000. Finally, the Bill updates the penalties for various offences under the Act, and proposes a couple of new offences, such as the failure of an unlicensed healthcare establishment to comply with an order to close the establishment; and failure to comply with an order to stop using an equipment or to stop carrying out a practice deemed dangerous or unsuitable. Sir, medical knowledge, medical technology and medical practice have changed and advanced tremendously in the last two decades and will continue to evolve into the new millennium. New diseases pose new challenges that will present new modalities of treatment and new approaches to patient care. In the midst of these changes, there will always be a need to ensure that a high level of professional standard is upheld in healthcare establishments. The amendments proposed in this Bill will strengthen the regulatory framework so that we can meet these challenges with confidence and achieve our goal of providing good quality health care to Singaporeans that is appropriate to their needs. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Order. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.15 pm. Sitting accordingly suspended at 2.52 pm until 3.15 pm.

Sitting resumed at 3.15 pm

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak in support of the Private Hospitals and Medical Clinics (Amendment) Bill. I would like to declare that I am a medical practitioner. Sir, I must say that the introduction of this Amendment Bill is necessary and indeed timely. The extensive amendments are welcome as they suitably update the 1995 Edition of the Act to cater for the vast changes in the healthcare industry. It would appear to me that the main crux of this Amendment Bill seeks to rope in control of the so-called "healthcare establishments". I would suggest that the words "healthcare establishments" be inserted into the preamble of the original Act. Sir, this notwithstanding, I would like to seek clarification on several other matters in this Bill. Would the Senior Minister of State for Health clarify on one of the main objectives of licensing the various private healthcare establishments, laboratories, clinics and hospitals in Singapore as provided in this Bill? Is the assurance for quality of such premises or the control of quantity of such premises the priority? Sir, my concern is that with the latter, we shall create, in the future, a tradable commodity for those licences of existing practices. This will pose difficulties for young doctors to set up new medical practices and other healthcare personnel and concerns to set up laboratories and hospitals. The problem may be further compounded if the controlled and restricted numbers of licences from existing holders invariably become scarce commodities. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to know if the licensing mechanism will enable better distribution of healthcare establishments in Singapore. Let us be reminded of a past incident where six clinics were opened in the same block of an estate. No doubt, the problem then was due to the "tender scheme" for HDB shops. In the amendment of section 2 under clause 2(b), the definition of "healthcare establishment" as any premises or conveyance (not being a private hospital, medical clinic or clinical laboratory or part thereof, and not being an establishment or conveyance maintained by the Government or the National University of Singapore) that aims to provide the services stated would mean that a wide range of premises or conveyance will fall within the ambit of the Act. Sir, would the Senior Minister of State for Health confirm whether a wider definition like this is intended so that traditional Chinese medical clinics, acupuncture centres, health spas, and the like, can be included for licensing? That these establishments may provide or attempt to provide diagnosis, treatment, or care of persons suffering from any disease, injury, or disability is indisputable. I applaud the provision for Quality Assurance Committees in new section 10 to enhance and ensure the quality standards at private hospitals and healthcare establishments. This amendment provides for transparency in quality control and reassurance to recipients of healthcare in Singapore. New subsection 10(3) is good, as this will give protection to quality assurance committee members and will facilitate their unrestrained and efficient contributions. My concern is on new subsection 10(4) in that the minutes of the meetings can be made available for any proceedings. Will these not erode the protection to the said members in any proceeding? Related to the implementation of the Act, I would like to urge the Senior Minister of State for Health to cause her Ministry to be mindful of two issues: (1) A surfeit of fees chargeable for various licences. For instance, in the case of a medical practitioner, besides the $600 fee for the clinic licence every two years, there are fees for the practising certificate, medical insurance, equipment like an ultrasound machine, and so on. All these add up to higher costs and run counter to our aspirations of containment of healthcare cost. Would the Minister consider waiving the fees or at least keeping them reasonably low? (2) The new section 11 gives the Director or an authorised officer very wide powers to enter, search and inspect any premises and to ask a licensee to furnish information. Although we can understand that such powers are necessary to facilitate checking and compliance, I hope the licensees are not subject to excessive demands for inspections, data collection and submission or for surveys and audits. These can be counter productive insofar as they are fundamentally laborious, disruptive and expensive. I hope this Amendment Bill will enable the Ministry to fulfil an effective "watchdog" role. Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak. I agree, in principle, with the main thrust of the Bill which is to regulate the standards of medical care in the interest of the public. Although this Bill is intended to enforce good medical audit on healthcare institutions that are "western" in medical orientation and treatment, I urge the Minister to expand its scope to regulate non-western and experimental health practices. In the past few years, we observe the growth of a grey spectrum of healthcare practices which some call "alternative medicine" and others call "complementary health systems". Some are more acceptable forms of alternative medicines like Chinese herbal treatment, homeopathy and acupuncture which apply different modalities towards health recovery. There are also the high-tech "clinical" centres offering services in colonic irrigation, live cell therapy, hair transplants and other forms of transformative cosmetic surgery. We have had cases of people dying because of botched up colonic irrigation or scarred by plastic surgery performed by inadequately trained beauticians. Hence, we have to be wary of these medical practices which are of questionable medical benefits. This Bill is therefore timely, some may even argue that it is long overdue. It is an enabling instrument which will give the authorities the legal teeth to classify and regulate all healthcare practices and to vigorously intervene, when necessary, to safeguard the integrity of the medical profession and protect the public. But, Sir, I do have some qualms on certain elements in the Bill which, if not corrected, may not provide sufficient guidelines and checks on the authorities in the pursuit of their duty. I would like the Minister to clarify four points. My first query is on the notion of "healthcare establishment". The advocates of alternative and complementary medicine will regard their healing modality as more holistic and less invasive than "western" institutional medical practices. Are these healing "clinics" in meditation, aromatherapy, acupuncture, foot reflexology and other holistic and wellness centres classified as "healthcare establishments"? Not only had these new approaches gained popularity among entrepreneurs who wished to develop them within medical institutions in the new millennium, users in the community have argued in favour of their "treatment" potency. A massage, for example, is regarded as having more healing power than the panadol. This marks a shift of medical preference in some pockets of Singaporeans away from western clinical methods of healing. I would like the Minister to articulate at this juncture, other than the institutions earlier named by her, what would she define as "healthcare establishment". In line with my concern with the non-traditional medical institutions, are slimming centres, beauty parlours and hair transplant salons classified as "health establishments"? Do the practitioners like Chinese sinsehs and counsellors with non-credentialised qualifications in the new healing trades come under the scrutiny of this Bill? If they are not, I urge the Minister to consider broadening the scope of the Bill that enables the Ministry to regulate their growth, classify the plethora of healthcare practices, supervise and sanction their service and professional standards. My second concern is on the notion of "prescribed standards" in relation to the issue or refusal to issue a licence by the Director. Alternative health healing practices are now carried out by individuals who are paid to make home visits to attend to the sickly, often without assistance of any nursing staff. Some are trained healers, having studied abroad, where alternative medicine has become institutionalised, many others are not accredited by any training body but have gained their healing experience through work. These same practitioners are invited sometimes by private clinics and hospitals to conduct limited healing programmes for the patients. If any mishap happens during the treatment and a patient suffers or dies, is the institution employing these holistic practitioners held responsible for the problem? Where do these freelance practitioners stand in relation to the Bill? I urge the Minister to develop some broad guidelines of "prescribed standards" in each field of "western", "traditional", alternative or complementary medicine to guide entrepreneurship in this area. I can understand that the Minister may not want to come down "heavy" on these practitioners by killing the industry with a narrow set of "do's" and "don'ts", but neither do we want to leave the matter so open that will lead to explosive contention upon the disagreement of definitions and standards between policy makers and practitioners. That brings me to my third question on safeguards for practitioners. In the event that the Director revokes the licence of a medical establishment, what recourse is there for the licensee to have his case heard independently without prejudice? The Bill provides for appeal to be made to the Minister who will then set up an Advisory Committee to review the petition. Would the Minister consider setting up a recourse mechanism and procedures that allow an independent and professional judgement of alleged offences? In relation to this matter, does the Medical Council have a regulatory and disciplinary function in adjudicating the judgement process? My fourth and last concern questions the total protection from any suit or other legal proceedings which the Director, any authorised officer or any member of an Advisory Committee enjoys. What is the rationale, Sir, for this protection? And how can we make sure that they will execute their duties in good faith, consistently and by maintaining a high level of sound judgment if they were not held responsible for wrongful decisions or malicious decisions? If directors in any business corporations come under the scrutiny of the laws, why not the Director in executing this Bill? Is it appropriate or necessary to endow so much power in one Director since the Attorney-General's Chambers are already entrusted with the jurisdiction to try any offence related to health malpractices? Could the Minister elaborate on some of the qualified privileges which the Director has to abide by before he proceeds to search and seize documents from private practices? I hope that the Minister would clarify these points in her response.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I will attempt to answer the points raised by Dr Lily Neo first. In general, she supports the Bill but she has raised a couple of issues. First, the issue of quality versus quantity. She asked whether the main objective of the Bill is to regulate quality, that is, the standard of the professional services or control the quantity, that is, the number of healthcare establishments that will be set up. Let me reiterate that the main objective of the Bill is to give my Ministry more effective means to ensure that hospitals, clinics and nursing homes maintain a good quality of care and that there are provisions within the establishments for the QA activities. So the Act primarily seeks to enforce the parameters that the hospitals, nursing homes and clinics must work under in order that the health services given to the public are of a high standard. The new section 5(3) of the Bill defines the parameters for the Director to issue or refuse to issue a licence but none of these parameters refer to the distribution or the number of hospitals, clinics or nursing homes. In other words, the Bill does not control the number or distribution of such premises. She was correct in pointing out that one sometimes finds in HDB estates a concentration of five or six medical clinics. But this is the result of the tendering process where the doctors make a decision to locate their clinics in a certain locality. We have, in the past, left it to market forces and I think we should still leave it to market forces to decide on the number and distribution of healthcare establishments. The Bill is not intended at all to cover this aspect of her concern.

I would discuss her point about whether traditional Chinese medicine or acupuncture clinics can be considered as healthcare establishments under this Bill, and other kinds of healthcare establishments that we might want to regulate, later on. She was concerned also about new sub-section 10(4) which states that "the minutes of meetings can be made available for any proceedings" and whether it would erode the protection of the said members in any proceedings. Under sub-section 10(3) of the Bill, a person who is a member of a QA committee is not compelled to disclose the proceedings of the committee. However, sub-section 10(4) would only apply if the Ministry has adequate reason to believe that this person has not acted in good faith and there is some deliberate cover-up of wrongdoings by the doctor under investigation. The Director can then require that the relevant information or minutes of meetings be made available for review. This is the same question that Mdm Claire Chiang has asked about qualified privilege. In other words, a member of a QC committee is protected by this Bill and is not compelled to divulge any proceedings, but if there is reason for the Ministry to suspect that there is some wrongdoing or that the QC member did not act in good faith, the minutes of evidence could still be called for. The Ministry can still look into this evidence and an aggrieved patient or doctor would still have recourse to the normal process of the law to sue, because if the QC member was found not to have acted in good faith, then what he said and his opinions in the QC committee would still be open to legal judgment. As for the high fees that Dr Lily Neo talked about, I would like to clarify that the $600 clinic licence fee is actually for two years. It is not for one year. Also, this licence allows a clinic to have up to five doctors or dentists. The onus on a single or individual doctor or dentist is not that heavy in terms of financial burden. I take her point that doctors have to pay for their practising certificate, clinic licence fee and also some charges or fees for equipment such as ultrasound, laser, x-rays and so on. These are meant to cover only administrative expenses for enforcing the regulations under the various requirements. I have actually thought about this and I asked for some comparative figures on what lawyers have to pay to stay in the practice. They pay much more, in fact. For example, a practising certificate for lawyers can vary between $450 and $750 per year. All of them have also to pay for an indemnity policy, on an average of $4,000 for every million dollar revenue collected, as compared to the doctor's medical defence insurance which is just between $1,000 and $2,000. But this is for the good of lawyers and doctors. They should cover themselves with such funds. On top of that, if lawyers want to be a notary public or a Commissioner of Oaths, they have to pay an additional registration fee of $1,000. I should say that lawyers are comparable to doctors as professionals, but the fees they pay are higher than what doctors are paying under our present schedule. I take her point that these fees should not be too onerous and her point that the requirement for licensees of healthcare establishments to furnish information on their practice, procedures, and so on, should not be too onerous. I would like to assure her that the visits would be coordinated by the various sections of the Ministry and my officers would make sure that the data collection and submission will not place an undue demand on healthcare establishments at the expense of their productivity. Finally, she asked that the term "healthcare establishment" should be put in the preamble of the Act. I can look into that. I think there is no problem with putting back the term "healthcare establishment" into the preamble of the Act. On Mdm Claire Chiang's concerns, I find her reference to the Director of Medical Services as being comparable to the director of a company rather puzzling. I think we are talking about two different things. The Director of Medical Services is charged with the responsibility to oversee the professional standards of the entire health sector. I find that it is not really a comparable issue. As far as appeals are concerned and on safeguards, if the licensee commits a certain breach of the licensing requirement, this would be under the purview of our Ministry's regulations. The Act already provides for the composition of fines, instead of bringing the licensee to court. If it is a matter of medical ethics or a professional lapse, then the person would be brought before the Medical Council. So it is a matter of professional judgment and the Council is an independent body. I can assure her that various bodies are in place to regulate the healthcare establishments and to ensure that they perform to certain standards within the purview of this appeal process. If a licensee is aggrieved, he can appeal to the Minister and the Minister can appoint an Advisory Committee. This Advisory Committee would be a panel of experts, depending on the type of healthcare establishments you are talking about. Obviously, a dental clinic would be under a panel of dentists. A medical clinic would be referred to a panel of medical professionals who are in that specialty. We are talking about having panels of experts to assist the Minister in Advisory Committees. This appeal process is in place. Why should they be protected in the same way for their opinions? As I explained, both the QA committee and members of the Advisory Committees are to give their opinions to the hospitals, the healthcare establishments or to the Minister in good faith. They can express their opinion very frankly in such committees and they give their opinion in good faith. But they are only given qualified privilege. If there is any reason to doubt that they are trying to cover up any mistakes done by the hospital or to protect another colleague, then there is a process whereby their evidence could still be discovered. As for alternative medicine, I share her concern that there is a proliferation of so-called alternative medicine, complementary medicine or alternative healthcare practices springing up in Singapore. This is a world-wide trend and I think many countries in the world are still grappling with how to regulate and recognise them. I would not want to give my opinion on whether these alternative practices are more holistic than western medicine. I would not want to give an opinion on whether they are holistic or not. But definitely, they exist. Some have long traditions, like traditional Chinese medicine. Some have sprung up recently, like the revival of customary healing practices and so on. At present, traditional medicine, whether it is of the Chinese, Malay or Indian tradition, is exempted from the Private Hospitals and Medical Clinics Act, just as these practitioners are exempted from the Medical Registration Act. But as I have informed the House in the Budget debate last year, we are already going into the area of registering acupuncture within the near future. With the registration of acupuncturists, we would go into the registration of acupuncture clinics and then maybe we would move on to other areas of traditional Chinese medicine. As for other kinds of complementary medicine, I think we have to tread with great care. We have to be very cautious. The boundaries are vague and the claims are also very difficult for us to evaluate. We have to tread very slowly. But the Amendment Bill will precisely enable us to go into regulating them, if there is a need. At the moment, health or wellness centres and health spas do not carry out the kind of diagnosis, treatment and care of people with disease, injury or disabilities in the same way as medical practitioners do. So they are not under the purview of this Act. I think we have to be very careful about going into the area of regulating slimming centres, beauty salons and so on. We have already gone into regulation of cosmetics. The Amendment Bill will allow us the flexibility of regulating these other kinds of so-called healthcare establishments, if there is a need to.

On her point about colonic irrigation clinics, the case we know was an unlicensed clinic, and it is precisely because of this incident that we need to enhance our powers to go and search premises, and seize evidence because we had difficulty in getting evidence to prosecute this case. We had to seek the support of the Police because it was done in unlicensed premises. I think I have covered most of the points that she has raised, Sir. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Dr Aline Wong].

Bill considered in Committee, reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Third Reading read. 3.47 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move "That the Bill be now read a Third time." Sir, the Muslim community has shown keen interest in the development of the amendments to the Administration of Muslim Law Act (AMLA). My colleagues, the Malay Members of Parliament, and I received much feedback from the public last year and also this year. Members of the public have also written or discussed the Bill with my Ministry and MUIS. The Select Committee on this Bill received a total of 31 written representations from a wide variety of individuals and organisations. I am grateful that so many have taken time to give their views and suggestions on the Bill and I thank them all for their contributions. Sir, the Select Committee considered all the representations submitted. It heard oral evidence from seven representors. To reflect the diverse views, the Committee also decided to publish four other written representations in its Report submitted to Parliament. The Committee recommends a number of amendments to the Bill after studying the written submissions and the oral evidence of the representors. The Committee also considered all the views that Members of Parliament expressed during the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill. The Report of the Select Committee has been circulated to Members of the House last month. Sir, let me now highlight the Select Committee's deliberations and recommendations. Allowing the Civil Courts to Hear Ancillary Matters on Divorce Sir, read with section 17A of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (SCJA), section 35A of the amendment that provided for the Civil Courts to hear matters ancillary to Muslim divorces, namely, custody and division or disposition of matrimonial property on divorce, drew the most interest and comment from the Muslim community. Eighteen representors expressed concern over or were against the amendment and four supported it. The main issues raised by these representors were: (i) that the amendment would dilute the status and powers of the Syariah Court; (ii) that the Civil Law applied by the Civil Courts may contradict Syariah law; and (iii) that more Muslims would turn to the Civil Courts to resolve their matters when they should be going to the Syariah Court instead. Sir, allow me to present the Committee's deliberations on these concerns. On the first point, the Committee notes that the Bill does not - and I repeat - does not dilute nor remove the powers of the Syariah Court. The amendment is really to clarify the jurisdiction between the Civil Courts and the Syariah Court on ancillary issues. In the Second Reading of the Bill, I emphasised that the Syariah Court continued to have jurisdiction over all matters presently within its jurisdiction where the parties are Muslims or were married according to Muslim law. In fact, under new provisions in the Bill, parties would now be required to obtain the Syariah Court's leave or to be counselled before commencing or continuing proceedings in the Civil Courts on issues relating to property on divorce or custody of children. The provisions in AMLA make it explicit and transparent the system for applying for leave to commence or continue civil proceedings and the staying of these proceedings. On the second point, the Committee finds little cause for concern over possible conflict between Civil and Syariah laws if ancillary matters were heard in the Civil Courts. Some representors, for example, were particularly concerned over how Civil law would apply to disputes on the custody of Muslim children. The Committee consulted the Attorney-General's Chambers, Muslim lawyers who practise in both civil courts and Syariah Court and MUIS and found that there are no differences in basic principles between Syariah law and the Guardianship of Infants Act, as both consider the welfare of the child to be of paramount importance. The AMLA, in addition, also specifically provides for the Civil Courts, in cases where religious issues could be a consideration, to seek advice from the Legal (or Fatwa) Committee of MUIS. Sir, several representors strongly pushed for the Syariah Court to be the only forum to hear matrimonial disputes between Muslims, fearing that giving an avenue to the Civil Courts would undermine and diminish the authority of the Syariah Court. They felt that in the past, Muslims had little choice but to go to the Civil Courts, as the Syariah Court did not have adequate resources to deal with their disputes. The Select Committee deliberated over these concerns at length. It concluded that Muslims, as citizens of this country, must be allowed the same right of access to the Civil Courts as non-Muslims. There may also be instances where the legal issues in a case need to or can only be resolved in the Civil Court. For instance, in disputes over property, the legal claim could involve third parties who are non-Muslims. Another example will be cases involving property or parties overseas. Let me reiterate that the Bill does not in any way undermine the authority of the Syariah Court. The Select Committee saw the need for sufficient safeguards to ensure that parties intending to resolve ancillary issues in the Civil Court did so with full knowledge and understanding of the implications. Under the Bill, the legal processes give that person ample opportunity for such knowledge and understanding. Firstly, he or she must first seek leave of the Syariah Court. Secondly, he or she may appeal to the Appeal Board in MUIS for a final decision, if dissatisfied with the Syariah Court's ruling. However, the Committee found that there is no such safeguard for couples who, by mutual consent, want to go to the Civil Court to settle their matrimonial disputes. Some representors held that the Bill should provide a safeguard in the form of counselling for this group. They will at least be making an informed decision should they insist on going to the Civil Courts despite being counselled. The Committee agrees and recommends amending the Bill to provide for mandatory counselling to such couples. Sir, some members of the community expressed concern that the legal process which I have described may generate more work for the Syariah Court and distract it from performing its core functions. This is unlikely to be the case, because a clear jurisprudence on the conditions for granting leave will develop after the initial set of cases going before the Syariah Court and the Appeal Board. Over time, there should be fewer applications as the Syariah Court grows in stature and improves its efficiency. Strengthening the Syariah Court Sir, I now turn to the measures to make the Syariah Court stronger. The Select Committee received several useful suggestions on ways to improve the Syariah Court. The Committee considered all the suggestions received and recommended the following: (i) To appoint a Senior President amongst the Presidents in the Syariah Court to head and provide directions for the Court and to issue practice directions, lay down court procedures and review rules and regulations; (ii) To appoint a panel of ad hoc Presidents of the Syariah Court to help cut down the present backlog of cases; and (iii) To appoint a Registrar to help relieve the Presidents of their non-substantive legal work. With these, the Syariah Court will be able to dispense justice to the community effectively and speedily. My Ministry will also be looking separately at administrative measures, procedures and manpower needs to enhance the efficiency of the Court to dovetail the Committee's recommendations. Incorporating the Women's Charter Principles for Disposition or Division of Matrimonial Property on Divorce Sir, the Bill provides that the Syariah Court shall apply principles in section 112 of the Women's Charter relating to the disposition or division of matrimonial property on divorce provided that they are consistent with Syariah law. Several representors felt that the Syariah Court should not be bound by the Women's Charter despite the qualification or to explicitly mention in AMLA of the application of Women's Charter principles, as they may suggest that the Syariah law lacks such principles. To correct any misperception, the Select Committee recommends incorporating into AMLA those principles from section 112 that are consistent with Syariah law, but without reference to the Women's Charter itself. Matters Pertaining to MUIS Sir, let me now deal with matters pertaining to the Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura (MUIS). Wakafs On the issue of wakafs, a representor suggested putting the onus to register wakafs on the trustees. Wakafs are properties that Muslims have dedicated under Syariah law. All wakafs, by law, are vested in MUIS. It follows, therefore, that they must be registered with MUIS. However, it is impossible for MUIS to know which properties have been so dedicated unless their trustees dutifully inform MUIS about them. In the past, MUIS has had to initiate court proceedings to recover wakaf properties disposed of by their trustees. The Select Committee agrees with the suggestion and recommends an amendment to make registration of wakafs mandatory to safeguard the properties from being disposed of indiscriminately. The registration will help prevent costly litigation and will protect the innocent buyer of a wakaf property. It will also enable MUIS to develop and enhance the value of the wakaf properties for the benefit of the community. MUIS will ensure that all trustees of wakafs have ample notice before registration is made mandatory. It will launch a public awareness drive to inform Muslims of the requirement. The trustees of existing wakafs will be given six months from the operation of the law to register. Trustees also have six months to register new wakaf properties. Haj services The Committee also agrees with a suggestion that persons acting as guides for pilgrims should be qualified religious teachers so that the pilgrims who go to the haj are properly advised on the performance of haj rites. This will be taken up in the Rules. In conclusion, Sir, I would like to reiterate that the amendments to the Bill seek to resolve the ambiguity that existed until now between the jurisdiction of the Syariah Court and Civil Courts and to strengthen the Syariah Court. They do not diminish the status nor do they take away any jurisdiction of the Syariah Court. Muslims will continue to have access to the Civil Courts to settle their matrimonial disputes albeit with prior approval by the Syariah Court. Sir, the law alone cannot move the institution forward. The Syariah Court will need the understanding, support and help of counsellors, lawyers, religious officials, community leaders and others, to enable it to become a court of choice for all Muslims. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Resolved, That the proceedings on the item of business under discussion be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1. - [Mr Wong Kan Seng].

Debate resumed. The Senior Minister of State for the Environment (Encik Sidek bin Saniff) (In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, the decision to bring the AMLA amendment to a Select Committee is a decision that is correct and of great importance. It is obvious that the decision has given rise to three positive effects. It gives society plenty of time and chance to analyse in detail, especially on the controversial aspect such as the concurrent jurisdiction and at the same time giving the Government a chance to explain any doubts or misconceptions that might exist, to gain consensus in many areas and to develop a deeper understanding towards other issues. Its acceptance or approval in Parliament today gives rise to two significance: (a) This amendment is more comprehensive and thus strengthens the powers of MUIS and the Syariah Court. (b) Concurrent jurisdiction, God willing, will give rise to a feeling of responsibility and care in handling this sensitive issue. We hope that the appointment of a Senior President of Syariah Court, an ad hoc President and a Registrar, together with its powers, will make the society understand even deeper and thus accept this amendment and the issues associated with it. In fact, the cooperation between the Syariah Court and the civil court from today will make way for a new journey which will not only affect the Malay-Muslim community but also the society as a whole. This will make a unique journey or pathway. This uniqueness is obvious because the decision involves two courts, ie, the Syariah and the civil courts which are based on two different backgrounds, one being religion and the other being secular. We are fortunate that our secular system is not against religion, unlike in some socialist and communist states which regard religion as opium or drug that is detrimental to the state and its social system. In fact, our country is too sensitive with the concept of multi-racialism, multi-religions and multi-lingualism, that it has taken action to protect, preserve and safeguard these three aspects. The concept of multi-lingualism is embodied in the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act and the Inter-Religious Council, are some of the positive measures that were taken. These measures are made possible because in a secularised system where there is no concept of after-life, there are still three sensitive factors that it stands by: Principles, Fact and Moral. Even though there are no "spiritual qualities" in a secular system, this system ensures that its moral aspect is applied. Sometimes differentiating between the wrong and the right goes in line with the spiritual demands, just as the importance of cleanliness, anti-corruption, misuse of power, theft, murder, abasement and the like. There are also times when these go against the customs, culture and religion, when culture, some say religion, does not allow the burning of firecrackers, which would endanger our property and lives; especially so in the recent legalisation of football betting, to save society from fraud, the use of force and victimisation. Secularism at this juncture has to differentiate between the evil and the lesser evil. I hope that the cooperation between the Syariah Court and the civil court would open a new phase that is positive and unique, when the two parties will respect each other - especially in Moral and Faith. As long as morality does not go against faith, I am sure that the journey or path of cooperation, however long it may be, will be a learning process that will bring benefit of mutuality in a multi-racial country. Let us say that a wrong decision has been made, correction must be made immediately, this could separate the wise from the foolish. Whichever is right hopefully could be refined, especially on the issue of child custody, joint income and divorce claims. This is a heavy responsibility that we all must take. It is a vista that should be explored with care. Being cautious, mutual respect and tolerance itself have been shown by the Prophet Muhammad 14th Century ago till the birth of the Medinah Declaration in the 6th Century. Muslim thinkers have made a conclusion that making this first Human Rights Declaration shows the universality of Islam. It involved the Muslims, Christians and Jews. Even though Medinah is under the rule of Islam, the declaration does not stress on Darus Islam (Land of Islam) but more on Darussalam (Land of Peace). I have asked Megawati who recently came to Singapore. I asked her when her father introduced the concept of pancasila, who among the Imams introduced this concept. She could not answer. She said perhaps pancasila existed before. She said that the concept of Darussalam (Land of Peace) and Darus Islam (Land of Islam) may not be understood by many. Even among the Muslims themselves, they are still vague about the concept. The concept that was encompassed in the Medinah Declaration existed hundreds of years before the birth of the Magna Carta, which existed in the year 1215. This spirit, I believe, caused the bishop Nestoria to write to his friend and this letter is still being kept safely: (In English) 'These Tayites (Arabs/Muslim) to whom God has accorded domination in our days, have also become our master; yet they do not combat at all the Christian religion. On the contrary, they even protect our faith, respect our priests and saints and make donations to our churches and our convents. They all inherited this and enjoyed freedom of conscience, justice and prosperity.' (In Malay) These factors too must have inspired Dutch orientalist Prof. Wensinck, a professor in Arab language, before the outbreak of the Second World War, made efforts to decipher the sayings of the Prophet Muhammad (hadith) and he said: (In English) '.the idea of a concordance of the principal collections of hadith should be prepared with a view to facilitate reference work among the western scholars who were working on the different aspects of Islam.' Wensinck died before World War II and his works were continued by Prof. Mensing. The book entitled "Concordance and Indices of Islamic Tradition" shows to the hadith recorded by Bukhari, Muslim, Tirmidzi, Ibnu Majah, An-Nasai, Abu Daud, Musnad Ad-Darami, Muwatta' Imam Malik and Musnad Ahmad ibn Hambal. This book became one of the references for graduates pursuing their PhD.

4.10 pm The sense of tolerance should be our inspiration when we enter the next millennium, the millennium of biotechnology. For instance, our cell, nucleus, chromosome, DNA and the ATGC (adenine, thymine, guanine, cytosine). The AMLA debate gives us the chance to strengthen the fabric of our society. Any multi-racial, multi-religious and multi-lingual state that ignores this fact will face paralysis, in fact, destruction. In 1991, Sahid Sahoman criticised the Prime Minister by using the word "religion". The opposition said that he should not be the leader of Muslims and Malays, because he is not a Muslim. How religion has been misused! Mr Deputy Speaker, the following day, we had a press conference and the Prime Minister, when explaining to the press, he looked at me and I looked at him. Maybe it is because we have been together for so long. I think he knew that I wanted to say something. Usually, I would just listen and keep quiet. So he gave me the opportunity to speak. I said that what the opposition had done was wrong, because Islam is not so narrow. Islam divides non-Muslims into three categories. Firstly, harabi non-Muslims. No one has to be a Muslim to fight the oppressor. Secondly, dzimmi non-Muslims, the good ones. Our Prophet treated them well. Even the Muslims were envious by this treatment. The Prime Minister can perhaps belong to that category, or at least an ahdi non-Muslim that can become partner in, say, business. It is better if you trust the ahdi non-Muslims, rather than do business with Muslims who might be corrupt. So, the next day, gentlemanly, Sahid Sahoman apologised to our Prime Minister. Gus Dur or A Rahman Wahid, in a television interview, has expressed his dislike to what had been happening in his country, Indonesia. He hoped that an atmosphere of tolerance and mutual respect will come into its re-existence. He has said that before, all pastors, priests and imams used to engage in healthy banter or humour even if they are from different religions. He said that there are three religious leaders, Christian, Hindu and Muslim leaders. While they joked, they asked which one among them are the closest to God. The Christian priest said that it is Christianity "because we call God our Father." The Hindu priest also claimed that they are also not far from God because they use Om. According to my Hindu friend, Lingam:

'Om is a spiritual sound to the Hindus. It prevails in the heart of the Hindus. It pervades the universe. It is a powerful mantra. You can recite it 21 or 108 times. Depends. It cleanses your Karma. Purifies your heart. It is a majestic sound.'

For example, some Hindus will recite Om Nama Sivaya. "Om" in the Indonesian language means Uncle.

Therefore it is Father for the Christians, for the Hindus, it is Uncle. Both priests looked into the direction of the Muslim Imam. So he said in reply, "We are close to our God too. We only need to climb the tower or minaret and call His name five times a day." I hope that the smiles on our faces in the House today would also infect those outside of this Parliament till the wave of tolerance is felt by our society. God willing, the universal society as well. Sir, every morning the sun rises. Every afternoon it sets. It is so simple. But in between the rising and setting of the sun, many things happen. Good or bad. We should work towards the good. Towards peace. Let us make our country a peaceful one, Darussalam, the Land of Peace. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill. The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I find the anecdote given by Encik Sidek just now very fascinating. I am still smiling, hoping that we would not only be close to God but also close to each other here. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, for allowing me to speak on this Bill. I rise in support of the Amendment Bill. We all know that Singapore is a secular state. But as I have said before, unlike secular states in the West, and even in the Muslim majority Turkey, ours is quite unique. I call ours "secularism with a soul". The way we handled the Administration of Muslim Law Act (or AMLA) and its current amendments in the House today, bear testimony to that feeling. This says a lot about the tolerance and the understanding that exist in our multi-racial and multi-religious Singapore today. Yes, all the Members of the Select Committee are Muslims, but it was chaired by Mr Speaker, a non-Muslim, in his capacity as the Speaker of Parliament. I do not know how Mr Speaker feels about Islam or about the Muslims, but I admire his tolerance and understanding of the issue at hand. I am confident, however, that the Select Committee sessions that we went through must have allowed Mr Speaker to better understand how the Muslims in Singapore feel about AMLA and to appreciate their aspirations. I admire, in fact, the patience of Mr Speaker. With your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I cite one example. After a long session and serious debate about the controversial issue of allowing the Civil Courts to hear ancillary matters on divorce, the representatives of the Young Women Muslim Association, persisted with their arguments, refusing to relent. The Chairman of the Select Committee intervened, reminding gently that they were repeating the same points. The President of the YWMA, Ms Fatimah Azimullah, persisted and argued further. Then the Chairman, Mr Speaker, interjected and assured them that they had made their point and that they would be given the last word. And despite that, another member, Ms Sakina Yusof Kagda, insisted on adding a few more "last words" to reinforce their concerns and to clear their conscience. The Chairman, Mr Speaker, then heard them patiently, still giving them the last word. Similarly, Sir, I hope this exercise would also give the opportunity to all Singaporeans, particularly non-Muslims, to better appreciate what AMLA is about and what it means to Singapore Muslims and to our multi-racial and multi-religious Singapore. Equally important, I trust this exercise will also allow Muslim Singaporeans to better understand the position of Islam and Muslims in secular and multi-religious Singapore. The Muslims have their own Syariah Court and family and personal law of inheritance. They also have the Muslim Religious Council (or MUIS) as a statutory board to regulate matters of religious life, including the haj, endowment or wakaf, halal food and mosques. But the Muslims know and accept that they are still an integral part of our multi-racial Singapore. The Muslims know that they are different in some ways but they also realise that they cannot completely live in a system within a system divorced from mainstream Singapore. There is always the need to remind ourselves about the bigger picture while we tackle the specific needs of the Muslim community, in this case the AMLA amendments. This was also achieved in the deliberations of the oral evidence, including during the sessions with the Association of Religious Teachers (Pergas), Jamiyah, Ms Noor Aisha Abdul Rahman, and a few others. The written representations, to my mind, generally also reflected a considerable level of maturity about the issues dealt with. Sir, I am glad to note that this Select Committee had attracted 31 representations. During the last Select Committee on AMLA hearing in 1966, there were 18 submissions, and that too after its closing date for submissions was extended three times. Thanks to the quality of the representations and the positive approach taken by the Committee, many amendments have subsequently been made to the earlier amendments and presented by the Minister for Community Development and Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs, Mr Abdullah Tarmugi, just now. This again, Sir, speaks well of the system and the openness therein. The amendments, no doubt, have strengthened both the Syariah Court and the Majlis Ugama Islam (MUIS). With these amendments, I am confident that the Muslim community will be able to stand tall, as far as the administration of the Muslim law is concerned. I have no doubt too that the system is not perfect. Neither do I think there is presently a perfect system in the administration of Muslim law in countries where Muslims are a minority. Even in Muslim majority countries, systems differ. If we were to look at Indonesia, Brunei and Malaysia, three of our ASEAN neighbours with Muslim majority, we will find different levels and shades of implementation of the Muslim law. If we were to compare the implementation of the administration of Muslim law in Singapore with that of the Philippines and Thailand, two other ASEAN countries with substantive Muslim minority population, I think we can be proud of our achievements. Yes, there were concerns expressed on the question of AMLA proposing to allow the Civil Courts to hear ancillary matters on divorce. True, there are areas where the Civil Courts handling ancillary divorce matters could end up unIslamic in nature, but as explained by Minister Abdullah, they are marginal and there will be sufficient safeguards to avoid such pitfalls. Meanwhile, there is a lot more to gain when Muslim Singaporeans are allowed to benefit from vast state resources available from the Civil Courts. In view of the sensitivity and the fear some may still have, despite the assurances, it is worthwhile for the Syariah Court and MUIS to closely monitor such ancillary divorce cases going to the Civil Courts so as to avoid such complications. In conclusion, Sir, this recent exercise has shown what can be done to improve the Administration of Muslim Law in Singapore. Yes, many had wished it should have been done much earlier, but more important now, progress definitely has been made. I am optimistic that there will be more progress in the future. I support the Bill, Sir.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. Let me, first, share my views on some of the principles and issues in this Bill. (1) This is not just a Malay or Muslim Bill. Sir, many in Singapore view this Bill as just another Malay or Muslim Bill. They do not appreciate the ramification of this Bill to the larger issue of race relations. I hope that Singaporeans can learn from the current regional situation that the rest of Singapore cannot be insulated from otherwise unrelated religious problems if ethnic communities in Singapore or, in the case, Malay-Muslim community feels that their fears and concerns are not adequately appreciated or understood by the majority of the Singapore population. Therefore, this Bill is as much about Singapore as it is about Malay-Muslims in Singapore because the issues have wide implications on the relationship between ethnic minority and the State. This Bill is about managing the complexity of multi-racialism in Singapore. (2) Potential conflicts exist. Many Singaporeans may be unaware and ignorant of the fact that whenever a case involving matrimonial property and custody is being decided in court and given wide publicity in the press, there is great anxiety and apprehension amongst the Malay-Muslim population because of the concern that the decisions taken by the Civil Court may be in conflict with Islam. Many Muslims have the perception that there are wide differences between Muslim and civil laws although, in actual fact, there are only slight, if any, differences between Syariah and civil laws relating to the maintenance, custody and division of property on divorce. In my view, Sir, and it is also shared by those who presented themselves at the Select Committee, the Civil Courts have been extremely fair and sensitive when dealing with cases that have implications on Islam. I must compliment our judges and journalists who have been very careful in dealing with these sensitive issues. I think they have done their jobs so successfully that a large section of our population today have become unaware of the potential conflicts and problems some of these cases may bring. Having said that, some of the Malay-Muslims still fear that when the crunch comes, and there is a conflict between the interpretation of the Civil and Syariah Courts, the Civil Court would never compromise its position in terms of justice and equity for the sake of any particular religion. While my friends in the predominantly Muslim neighbouring countries take comfort that should there be any conflicts between Islamic and civil laws, there will be enough political or judicial intervention to ensure that the reputation of Islam is not compromised. Some Malay-Muslims in Singapore are not similarly assured. As ethnic minorities, some feel inadequate in dictating or influencing the judicial process as can be done in some other predominantly Muslim countries and therefore are concerned that the Civil Court may not adequately consider Islamic interpretation when making its decisions. (3) Participation and consensus. I compliment the Minister for referring the Bill to the Select Committee for out of it has come numerous practical suggestions and recommendations that have resulted in further amendments to the Bill. Perhaps another less obvious but no less significant consequence is the fact that the process of participation by a large cross section of the community from professionals to Ulamas, social workers and community leaders have brought about a sense of collective ownership and a strong desire that the amendments represent a process that would bring the present status closer to the aspirations of the community. There is today a sense that each and every Malay-Muslim counts. That each has a role to play in strengthening the social institutions like the Syariah Court and overcoming the many problems that continue to beset the community. Whilst some may disagree with a number of specific provisions proposed in the amendments, what cannot be denied is that the Bill requires the moral support of all Malay-Muslims if we are to see solid and visible improvements. I hope this sense of ownership can be translated into action, for example, volunteers and social workers to help the counselling process of those contemplating divorce, especially now that this process can be delegated to the community and lawyers and other professionals to help strengthen the Syariah Court that is extremely short of trained resources and lacks the experience in handling complex Muslim issues. What is also not disputed is the fact that there is a strong desire in the community to develop the Syariah Court into a full-fledged Family Court when it has acquired sufficient experience in establishing the tradition and jurisprudence that would enable it to handle increasingly complex problems of our society. This is an issue that confronts many Muslim societies the world over. With good support from the community, I am confident that Singapore can develop a unique model of balancing Syariah and civil laws that can serve as an example to the multi-racial society the world over. (4) Malay Paradox. Fourthly, coming to terms with multi-racialism. Sir, there is also the view that the aspirations of the Malay-Muslims in Singapore to have an independent and full-fledged Syariah Court is a sign of Malay-Muslim fundamentalism in Singapore. Sir, this is an incorrect assessment. In my view, there exists a paradox in the Malay-Muslim community and in fact in the heart and soul of a Malay-Muslim Singaporean. As an individual, we are expected to reflect and demonstrate our evangelical spirit and be a role model to other Muslims. Malay-Muslim leaders, either in politics or in community, because of their privileged position and the influence that they may have on society, are also expected to be the protector, defender and crusader of Islam. This is especially so in Singapore where Malay-Muslims are ethnic minorities, where increasing complex social problems are seen as a result of the social ills of modernisation and westernisation and where Islam is considered as the only force that is capable of confronting this influence. Yet, the dilemma is that Malay-Muslim leaders, by virtue of their position in society, must necessarily be more aware of the multi-racial dynamics of the Singapore society and therefore are constantly put under pressure to balance the secular and religious interest of the community without being unnecessarily compromising in dealing with this conflicting interest. Individually, Malay-Muslim Singaporeans are still looking and coming to terms with balancing the religious and secular values. Some are still searching to find the comfort zone where they can be completely Malay-Muslim and wholeheartedly and absolutely Singaporean in our multi-racial society. (5) A society in transition. Fifthly, historical perspective. Even during the empires of the Caliphate from AD 632 to 661, there were separate syariah and non-syariah jurisdiction. I quote from S.E. Finer on The History of Government from the Earliest Times: 'The caliphs set up syariah courts, conducted by trained specialists, the gadis, but because so much of syariah law was unsuited and unaccommodated to the running of the state, the caliphs had also established their own court whose principal duty had been to deal with complaints against and between their officials. It was an "administrative court" of complaints, the mazalim. To remedy the syariah courts' inadequacy for administering the empire, they attracted into these mazalim courts entire classes of business relating to statecraft. It was by these steps that the empire came to have one law - the syariah - but two separate jurisdictions: the syariah jurisdiction and the non-syariah jurisdiction, that is, the caliphal one, not unacceptable to the ulama who had always recognised that he had the right to define the jurisdiction of the syariah court. So, while the latter handled religious, family and most civil matters like police, taxation, criminal justice, and military affairs fell within the caliphal jurisdiction.' Sir, even in modern Islamic history, we could see that one of the crucial issues defining the political future is the relationship of Islamic forces and democratic political systems. Competition, cooperation and conflict are amongst the most important dimensions of Muslim life. From Malaysia to Morocco, Indonesia to India, societies are concerned with the compatibility of Islam and democracy and their respective roles in the political evolution of Muslim societies. While in some of these countries, revolution and reformation are characteristics of this process, we in Singapore can and should take a more evolutionary approach in managing this process. Sir, I now come to some of the more specific provisions of the Bill. There were genuine concerns that allowing Civil Courts to hear ancillary matters on divorce may dilute the powers of the Syariah Court. I am, however, of the view that there now exist sufficient safeguards to ensure that Muslims, as a matter of choice, will go to the Syariah Court to resolve their disputes, that is, requiring parties to seek leave of the Syariah Court and provision for counselling even if there is mutual consent by both parties to go to the Civil Court to settle their disputes. Sir, the Syariah Court is the people's court. Utlimately, the status and reputation of the Syariah Court depends on the support it gets from the community. While it may be possible to regulate and make it mandatory for people to go to Syariah Court, this alone may not necessarily ensure the good reputation of the Syariah Court. Besides, Malays have progressed so far that there are complex issues, for example, involving overseas properties and other assets that may be too complex for the Syariah Court alone to shoulder this responsibility. (6) Strengthening the Syariah Court. I support the various initiatives to strengthen the Syariah Court to review the administrative measures, procedures and manpower needs and the call for Muslims to volunteer their services towards this cause. We can all agree on the ultimate goal of having a full-fledged Syariah Court but may differ on the pace and time it will take to achieve this. But we must be careful to ensure that our hopes and wishes are matched by the capacity and the capability of the Syariah Court to shoulder this responsibility. (7) Future amendments to separate laws for AMLA and MUIS. I would like to propose that we have separate laws for AMLA and MUIS to reflect the different roles and responsibilities of MUIS and the Syariah Court and to give these two matters more specific focus and attention. Sir, in conclusion, with these amendments, we have, in my opinion, the necessary prerequisites to make the Syariah Court a great Muslim Family Court. More importantly, those seeking legal remedies can now expect better and prompt service because justice is also about efficiency and productivity. This is certainly by no means the last amendment to the Bill. As we progress, we will need to amend AMLA periodically to keep pace with the progress and aspirations of the Malay-Muslim society. For now, Sir, only a solid endorsement by all concerned is the most appropriate support that we can give to this Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Select Committee has received 31 proposals. The Committee has painstakingly examined all the proposals and has incorporated many of the proposals by the Members of this House as well as members of the public. This is very encouraging, Sir. There have been representations both from individuals as well as Muslim organisations. This is encouraging. The Bill has benefited from the public representation. It is important that this legislation will reflect the social norm of our time. This House must be prepared to change laws which need to be amended, and AMLA is such a law. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, there is one concern which I would like to share with this House. Other Bills which were committed to a Select Committee, the representation made by the Malay community was not very encouraging. May I urge the Malay community leaders that they should be forthcoming and air their views on national issues as well, not just on Muslim issues. The minority community should participate in activities from the grassroots level to the national level. Only in this way, can we build community bonding and multi-racialism. Sir, my other NMP colleagues and I have received a letter from one Muslim group, and there have been some serious views expressed in the letter. I would like to assure the group that I have considered their views very carefully and I cannot support them. One of the proposals was that the AMLA's amendment would in fact contravene the Constitution which, I think, is not correct. No provision of the Constitution is being contravened and that proposition has no foundation at all. Therefore, I would like to assure the group that their view was represented in the Select Committee. The Select Committee had published and considered their view. Nevertheless, since they had written to the NMPs, we owe a duty to have this publicly aired. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we must bear in mind that not all proposals before any Select Committee can be accepted. Only proposals that are workable and within the legal framework can be accepted. Therefore, many representors may be wondering why their views have not been heard or accepted. The simple reason is that only views which will reflect the majority view and will be good for the Bill are accepted. Sir, the civil law and the syariah law are going to operate side by side. The Muslim community has a choice. I would like to assure the Muslim community that the civil jurisdiction does not take away the Muslim position. Whenever the law is being interpreted, the Muslim position is considered by the judges. Another aspect which I would like to share is this. We should strengthen the Syariah Court's position, as is being done in the Family Court. We should allow for more mediations and discussions to help people who are going through a dispute. In the past years, the Family Division of the Subordinate Court has done very well. I hope the Minister will take this point and advise the Syariah Court that it should treat legal dispute for hearing as a last resort. After all, we are an Asian society and the practice that has been followed in the Family Court is worthy of consideration. I would seriously urge the Minister to get his officials to look at it. Sir, I am glad that some of the proposals have been accepted. I am also glad that we will have two Presidents, one of them would be senior, ad-hoc Presidents and a Registrar who will help in the administrative work. And I would suggest that we should have a Deputy Registrar, if necessary. With this, Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, first, I would like to thank the Members who have expressed their widespread and strong support for the Bill. Mr Sidek and Mr Zainul, in their own inimitable way, spoke at length of the need for tolerance, understanding and mutual respect in a society like ours, especially in areas where things spiritual - faith, religion, beliefs - come into contact with the secular, the need for accommodation and the need for reconciliation between these two spheres. I share this sentiment, Sir, and it is indeed in this spirit that the amendments to AMLA are being proposed. As suggested by Mr Zainul, the Syariah Court, MUIS, and certainly my Ministry, will monitor the progress of these amendments to ensure that if things need to be reviewed or improved upon, we would certainly do so. Mr Zulkifli spoke about our multi-racial society. I can readily appreciate and emphathise with the Member's points on the sensitivities and the issues of concern in our society and the need to consider our multi-racial and multi-cultural context in anything we do. As for AMLA and MUIS to be treated separately, it is, I think, a separate issue and one which will have to be studied very closely, especially the implications of the separation. I agree with the Member on the need to monitor the progress of the amendments, and we would certainly do so. Mr Rai supported the Bill too. I am aware of the complaint from the three persons whom Mr Rai mentioned and the trio's attempts at lobbying the NMPs to pursue their cause in this Parliament. I have checked the allegations and arguments with the relevant experts and they are of the view that these allegations and arguments are misconceived and without basis. As to mediation, whether it should be encouraged, I think the Member would be pleased to note that there is indeed a culture of mediation in the Syariah Court, and it is certainly an area which we will develop further. The Bill has gone through extensive consultations, study and discussions by individuals, organisations and experts and among the Malay MPs and the institutions concerned. I accept that not everyone would accept every amendment to AMLA. Indeed, I think it is unreasonable for us to expect this. But I am, Sir, comforted by the fact that almost everyone agrees that, as a whole, the amendments serve to strengthen the Syariah Court and also MUIS, the two important institutions to Muslims here. I think this is how we should look at the Bill. Each amendment is like a piece of mosaic, each fitting into each other to be built into a very fine mural which no single piece of mosaic would be able to conjure, no matter how ugly or attractive that individual piece of mosaic is. I would like to commend the Muslim community to adopt this approach. We should also consider how the Bill will serve the needs of the community in the context of our multi-racial and multi-cultural environment, as has been expressed by various Members. Ultimately, it is not the amendments alone that will make the Syariah Court stand tall and proud but also how it conducts itself after this. This depends on the quality of the principal officers, the efficiency of the staff, the effectiveness of the processes and the procedures adopted, and the adequacy of the resources, both manpower and physical. This, the Syariah Court and my Ministry would certainly look into and make improvements where necessary, and members of the community are welcome to make any suggestions on how we could improve the Syariah Court or MUIS further. All said and done, Sir, the proof of the pudding will ultimately be in the eating and I hope the community would accept these changes with an open mind or, at least, give them and the Syariah Court a chance to prove themselves or, as mentioned by Mr Rai, give the Bill a chance to work. I am confident that, given time, experience and support from the community, the Syariah Court would emerge stronger, more effective and an institution worthy of the hopes, inspirations and the trust of the Muslim community in Singapore.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed.

Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed." - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. Adjourned accordingly at Ten Minutes to Five o'clock pm to a date to be fixed.

asked the Deputy Prime Minister (a) whether the Government's position in determining the pace and path of banking mergers in Singapore is contradictory to the principle of adhering to free market forces in Singapore's open economy; and (b) whether the Government has assessed its impact on credit facilities which are currently extended by banks to small and medium-sized enterprises.

The Government must set the pace of liberalisation in the banking sector, because we do not start from a totally laissez faire situation. While we have promoted competition in the banking industry, MAS has restricted foreign banks' activities in the domestic retail markets to protect and build up local banks. Foreign banks are subject to limits on opening branches, setting up off-premise ATMs, participating in shared-ATM networks and offering Electronic Funds Transfer at Point-of-Sale (EFTPOS) services. Nevertheless they enjoy a larger market share in Singapore than elsewhere in Asia, or in any major financial centre. They compete freely with local banks in many banking activities ranging from wholesale domestic banking, to treasury and capital market activities. The banking system is a key component of our economy. Strong domestic banks anchored in Singapore have interests closely aligned to the interests of Singapore. They are more likely to take a long term view of the business, especially in a crisis. A financial system in which the local banks have a large market share is therefore likely to be more stable and resilient. However, globalisation and rapid technological change are transforming the banking environment globally. Inevitably, this means more foreign competition for local banks, for example, through Internet banking or non-bank institutions offering financial services. MAS could retard the process by tightening regulatory restrictions on foreign banks. But that would mean shielding the local banks from pressures to upgrade, depriving Singaporeans of quality banking services, and making the ultimate adjustment more traumatic, when change can no longer be postponed and the barriers finally come down. Competition, not protection, is the best way to upgrade the industry, and develop strong and robust local banks which measure up against the best international players. Competition will encourage local banks to rationalise their operations, further exploit economies of scale and deliver efficient and innovative services comparable to the best available in other major financial centres. By taking steps to liberalise the banking industry now, we can pro-actively manage this change. But we cannot simply remove all restrictions overnight because the industry needs time to adjust to the new environment, and we must maintain confidence and stability in the banking system. The transition from the present state to the new one must be paced so as not to jeopardise this confidence and stability. MAS is, therefore, drawing up a 5-year programme to do this. The Government needs to shape the final outcome of the liberalisation, and not leave things purely to chance. Our aim is to have an open banking sector with strong local banks, not an industry from which local banks have been marginalised. We will liberalise in such a way as to allow and encourage the local banks to upgrade themselves into strong players. We are confident they will use the next five years to do so.

MAS has been discussing its plans with the local banks, both to seek their feedback, and to impress on them the urgency of change. At the same time, MAS has also been meeting with foreign banks to discuss how we can encourage strong and well-managed foreign institutions to make further commitments in Singapore and take a stake in the growth and stability of our financial system. The local banks are well run for their size, and are highly rated compared with other Asian banks. But they lack the economies of scale to hold their own against foreign banks that operate globally. If the local banks can consolidate and rationalise, and continue to build up and attract outstanding management teams, they can upgrade their operations and services, earn better returns for shareholders, and become stronger players both in Singapore and the region. That is what MAS is encouraging the local banks to do. However, MAS is not in a position to compel the banks to merge, let alone dictate who is to merge with whom. That can only be decided by the shareholders of the bank. (b) Traditionally, MNCs in Singapore have chosen to bank with large international banks with which they have a global banking relationship, while our domestic banks have built a profitable franchise lending to the SMEs. Unlike some other countries, we have not maintained a protected and inefficient sector of domestic companies, insulated from the efficient, export-oriented part of the economy. Instead we have encouraged domestic companies to upgrade and compete, because that is the only way they can offer well-paying jobs to Singaporeans. Since lending by local banks has always been on a commercial basis, any merger of banks resulting from the liberalisation of the banking sector should not adversely affect credit available to SMEs. Indeed SMEs will be best served by strong local banks providing efficient and innovative services.

asked the Minister for Finance if Singapore Airlines had consulted Air New Zealand before making the bid for Ansett Australia.

SIA's decision to acquire a 50% stake in Ansett from News Limited is made based on commercial considerations. Whether SIA had consulted ANZ before making the bid for Ansett is also a business issue. While the Government may be a major shareholder of SIA, it is the policy of the Government to leave commercial decisions to the company.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs if he will (a) state the number of migrants of Indian origin who have taken up permanent residence and citizenship in Singapore between 1st January 1990 and 31st December 1998; and (b) give the breakdown of the numbers by Indian sub-ethnic groups and their mother tongue Indian languages.

The total number of Indian migrants who took up permanent residence and citizenship in Singapore between 1st January 1990 and 31st December 1998 were about 32,900 and 8,600 respectively. The breakdown of the numbers by Indian sub-ethnic groups and their mother tongue Indian languages is not available.

asked the Minister for the Environment as to why the beaches of Pulau Ubin are polluted and what steps have been taken by his Ministry to keep the beaches there clean.

There are two main beaches at Pulau Ubin that are popular with the public. Both are located at the northern end of Pulau Ubin and are subject to seasonal Northeast Monsoon from December to March every year. During the monsoon period, large amounts of flotsams are washed ashore onto the beaches. Visitors and picnickers are another source of beach litter. My Ministry deploys workmen daily to clear the flotsams and other litter that are washed up onto the beaches during the monsoon season and school holidays when the beaches are more heavily utilised. But during the off-peak season, the beaches are cleansed less frequently - twice weekly, namely, before and after the weekend. To help keep the island clean, my Ministry has initiated a litter bag programme with the Pulau Ubin Police Post to get campers to bag their refuse. When campers report* to the Police Post for overnight camping on the island, the police officer on duty will issue our litter bags to the campers for them to bag their refuse for proper disposal. My Ministry will monitor the cleanliness of the beaches and step up our cleansing efforts, if necessary, to ensure that the beaches are clean. [* Note: Campers are advised to report to the Police Post if they plan to stay overnight on the island for their own safety.]

asked the Minister for Manpower, with an aging workforce emerging, if his Ministry will promote and facilitate the job redesign programme to enhance job security of older workers.

My Ministry considers job redesign as one of the adjustments needed to cope with an ageing workforce. In job redesign, we aim to get employers to make work and the workplace more accommodating for older workers. It may be necessary, for instance, to modify the actual duties to reduce physical stress which may exact a greater toll on older persons. Working hours and even the location of the workplace may need to be reviewed in order to accommodate the needs of older persons. New work arrangements such as job sharing and telecommuting should also be considered. We are working with the Productivity and Standards Board (PSB) to promote job redesign at the company level. A pilot programme with several companies to redesign jobs to suit older workers has been initiated. These companies will serve as models to demonstrate how work arrangements could be adjusted to suit the needs of older workers. PSB will help more companies to embark on job redesign programmes, and develop blue-prints to be shared with other companies so as to achieve optimal labour utilisation and productivity. I would also like to point out that the success of initiatives such as job redesign would depend on changing mindsets regarding the employment of older workers. On the part of the employer, older workers should be considered as valuable human resources to be properly managed and retained for as long as possible. Employers will have to accept the reality of a labour force with a growing proportion of older workers in the workforce. On the part of the older worker, he may need to be more realistic about the nature of his job and the expected remuneration. The issues of an ageing population and workforce are also being studied comprehensively by the Inter-Ministerial Committee on the Ageing Population. The Committee has set up six working groups, one of which is on Employment and Employability. This working group will look at increasing the productive lifespan of older persons, including promoting flexible and part-time work as well as elderly-friendly employment policies and practices. My Ministry will consider the outcome of their study in due course.

asked the Minister for Manpower if his Ministry will consider introducing legislation to have a new Occupational Health and Safety Act or to amend the Factories Act to extend its coverage beyond factory building to other workplaces.

The current Factories Act in Singapore provides for the safety, health and welfare of persons working in premises defined as "factories". These "factories" are traditionally premises in the manufacturing, construction, shipbuilding and ship-repairing industries where hazardous work processes are carried out. Since its enactment in 1958, the Act was amended several times. The last amendment in 1995 extended the coverage of the Act to premises such as laboratories, warehouses and aircraft parking bays. My Ministry is reviewing the Act with the intention of covering workers engaged in maintenance work on the MRT and LRT, ie, repair or maintenance work carried out on any rail, track, including viaducts and tunnels. However, there is a limit to which the Factories Act can be extended, beyond which the term "factories" would become meaningless. The workforce covered by the existing Factories Act is about 700,000, which is about one-third of the total workforce. In the next millennium, Singapore's economy will see a shift towards the knowledge-based economy (KBE). In order to support a vibrant KBE, we must create a safe and healthy workplace with world class occupational safety and health standards. This will allow our workforce to work safely and productively. My Ministry is currently reviewing the safety and health legislation to ensure that workers, including knowledge workers of the future will be adequately protected at work. New legislation on occupational safety and health may be required to cover the workplace of the future and to promote greater self-regulation by employers and manufacturers of machinery and work tools.

asked the Minister for Community Development and Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs what plans the Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura has to implement IT programmes in our full-time madrasahs to prepare madrasah students for the Knowledge Based Economy.

In November 1998, MUIS launched its $2 million Madrasah Information Technology Plan (MITP) with the following objectives: -

asked the Minister for Education whether his Ministry will allow students, whose mother tongue is not taught in the schools, to pursue a third language which is offered in the school curriculum.

The Ministry of Education ensures that there is a good distribution of schools in any given zone so that students will be able to enrol in a school within reasonable distance from their home that offers their mother tongue. For those students who enrol in schools in which their mother tongue is not taught, arrangements are made to have their mother tongue lessons at a school or centre which is within reasonable distance of their school. The Ministry will consider requests from parents of a student to study one of the official mother tongue languages offered in the student's school which is not the student's own mother tongue. Each such request is considered on a case-by-case basis.